Hi Debaters,
My email if you decide to start emailchain for evidence sharing

drneeruagarwal@gmail.com

I have judged elementary , middle school, Novice High School and Junior Varsity debate last year. I make unbiased decision even if I have some background knowledge of topic and always open to listening and learning. I believe with time information changes and affects our decision. It's always fun to see how new and pro debaters benefit with the rounds.

I will give points based on what you presented , how well you presented, did you have real content or just tried to pass time with some nonintelligent tricks. I will not hold you responsible for what you did not cover about topic.

I am particular about debate rules:

1. Manage time wisely
2. Do not expect me to intervene during crossfire
3. During cross fire do not try to waste opponent time by beating around the bush, ask precise clear questions
4. Use signposting as your strength and also makes judges job easy
5. I will take speaker points off if any arguments are conceded or if new arguments are brought up later than first summary.
6. Come prepared, decide how you want to share the evidence. Do not assume other team may share evidence the same way (ex. google doc vs chat)
7. I strive to start rounds timely and be respectful of everyone's time and effort.
8. Low point wins are possible, but it has happened once only so far for me (so be confident but not rude).

I can follow decent speed but will prefer someone not to rush to put more in given time and not explain their case /argument properly or have unused time on hand. So pace yourself.

I am looking forward to honest, respectful debates from which both the debaters and I will learn debating and the topic. I am fairly easy going person but particular about respectful debates. I am getting familiar with debate jargons but not a master yet. I prefer to give immediate oral feedback as that may help debaters to improve for next round as well as may be looking at all feedbacks later may not give as much clarity and satisfaction. I do not mind debaters asking questions about my decision as long as it's done in respectful way.

I am learning and evolving with debaters. I debated a little during high school and college and love it now also. So let's keep the fun going. Enjoy the topic and debate process do not focus on winning and loosing. Every round you will learn and get better irrespective of outcome.

Thanks,

Neeru

Hi! I competed for four years in PF at Newton South and am a first year out.

Short version

I’ll vote on the flow but slower debates are appreciated.

Warrants are crucial.

Please do comparative weighing.

Second rebuttal must frontline all defense/turns on any arguments that will be extended.

I’d prefer not to judge prog.

Tech > truth, but in the words of Nilesh Chander, “the best teams win on both fronts”.

Long version

How I judge:

- I will only evaluate what is extended in the second half. This means that if you want me to vote on an argument, you should extend both warrants and impacts. Missing warrants to me means that your argument isn’t true. Also new implications/responses late in round won’t be evaluated.

- Please, please frontline all defense on what you’re going for in second rebuttal. Also please collapse and don't extend your entire case.

- Doing comparative weighing will help me differentiate between arguments and also increase the chance that you’re happy with my decision.

- I won’t kick an argument for being too tech but I’ll accept weaker responses the more unrealistic it is.

- I default to and would prefer to use a util framework.

Speed:

- I can handle most speeds, but would prefer rounds to be slower overall as I’ll be less likely to miss things. When in doubt, send a speech doc.

Evidence:

- Paraphrasing is fine but direct quotes are better.

- I’ll only read cards at the end of the round if teams request it.

- If you can't find a card that's called, I'll treat it as an analytic.

- I will boost your speaks for disclosing on the PF NDCA wiki but there is absolutely no penalty for not disclosing.

Other stuff you might want to know:

- I don't flow cross, so if you get an important concession that you want me to evaluate you should bring it up in a later speech.

- I do time speeches. If you go overtime, I won't stop you but I will also stop flowing.

- I generally give high speaks, and I will also disclose if the tournament allows and both teams are okay with it.

- I don’t think I will ever presume, but if I did I would presume for the team that lost the coin flip.

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

Prog:

I think progressive arguments make the activity more confusing and am generally opposed to them.

On theory specifically: I dealt with a lot of theory when I was competing. I really don’t want to deal with theory as a judge unless there’s an actual violation that occurs in the round like a piece of evidence being seriously misconstrued, and even then I would prefer an IVI instead of a shell that kicks the substance completely. I’ll raise your speaks if you disclose but I don’t want to hear disclosure theory.

I feel uncomfortable in my ability to evaluate Ks and would highly prefer it if they are not read. Tricks etc are also too much for me.

I will not evaluate any kind of progressive argumentation in a novice round.

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

If you’re confused about anything or have additional questions, please ask me before the round!

Lay judge with limited experience.

Suggestions for contestants: Be respectful, stick to the facts, watch the timer.

Parent judge with no prior experience.

Please be respectful and speak clearly.

Try to avoid using debate jargon and make sure to explain your arguments thoroughly, as anything that goes unexplained may not be taken into consideration.

Name: Courtney Bassett

School Affiliation: Seaholm HS

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 5

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 20

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 10

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, All Individual Events

What is your current occupation? Community Engagement Coordinator at a school, Online Magazine Editor, Membership Coordinator for a nonprofit

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery – prefer slower

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Big picture

Role of the Final Focus – narrowed argument, impact

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

Topicality - neutral

Plans - no

Kritiks - neutral

Flowing/note-taking – flowing contentions

Do you value argument over style?  Style over argument?  Argument and style equally? Argument over style

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Preferred

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Not necessarily or usually

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. No

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

Keep track of time by yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cade, he/him

Current Affiliations - competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present, coach @ North Broward Prep: '22-Present.

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

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

cade.blenden03@gmail.com

Policy:

Speed is fine, a lack of clarity is not. Debaters should go as fast as they can without over-exerting themselves and falling off of pace. Nuanced debates that require lots of analytics, etc. (think counterplan competition or theory) should be slowed down a solid 20% to make sure I can keep up. I will not be afraid to say I did not catch something if it was too fast for me to get down.

Able to judge anything, probably have a bit of a critical bend. I'd prefer you to read the arguments you are most comfortable with than attempting to try to adapt to me--you are most likely a better orator on the positions you are confident in!

T/Theory/Etc. - these debates are my least favorite, but I feel as if I blame this on the fact that I cannot for the life of me keep up on these subjects if both teams decide to spread through quick tags, short cards, and large blocks of theory arguments without providing sufficient pen time. I am game for T and theory, just know I am not a flowing savant, and thus going very fast through a large amount of arguments is difficult. Keeping this in mind probably means you will have a much easier time keeping me in debates like this.

Judge kick seems to make sense if condo is justified, but I am game to question either of those premises.

"Cheating" counterplans (international fiat, object fiat, etc.) are up for debate, though I am much more likely to be persuaded if you can find a decent literature base that advocates in specific the proposal you defend, i.e., the world government counterplan with a solvency advocate is probably more convincing than a specific bilateral cooperation/action counterplan without one.

Competing interpretations makes logical sense, reasonability seems arbitrary and indeterminate, but I am down to be convinced otherwise.

CP/DA - these debates are fine, though I get lost with too much jargon (idk what a link controlling uniqueness or the inverse means or the impact it has on the round--if this is your schtick, explain the implication of what you are saying so I can keep up!)---impact comparison is the quickest way to get me with arguments like this.

K - As long as you can explain it! Don't mind listening to anything, though tags beyond three sentences and I may be a bit annoyed. I privilege debaters who can effectively explain their argument and contextualize it to the scenario of the debate round we are in. Topic-specific K > backfile check.

Case - Big case debate guy. Consequently also a big presumption guy--so many teams get away with warrantless 2ACs on case that are easily punished by spending some extra time there. From affirmatives, I would appreciate an effort to ensure the advantages/solvency mechanisms/etc. are explained/extended in some capacity in each speech, beyond mere tagline mentions. Efficiency should not come at the cost of argumentative depth and clarity. All I have said here applies especially to critical affirmatives. I much prefer cap + fwk and case to 5 nonsense variations of the heg DA that don't link.

More teams should be willing to defend their affirmative against the K--if ur aff sets up the link turn really well, don't invest needless time in setting up a losing perm debate!

PF:

Talk about the topic. Compare impacts. Respond to your opponents arguments. The more these things get overcomplicated, the harder PF becomes to understand and reliably judge.

LD:

I am judging this like a policy debate. Theory is not something I am the biggest fan of--especially some of the 'LD' type frivolous theory arguments.

Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at NSU University School

Last Update: November 2023---Thoughts on "Disclosure" and "Evidence Ethics" in PF added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1---Big Picture

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. I don’t think I have particularly controversial views, but have tried to be thorough where it matters for prefs/pre-round prep.

Policy vs. K---An argument is an argument, assuming it’s complete, warranted, and applicable.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly. I flow on a computer without much shorthand.

Evidence---I read it during debates. When referenced in CX, I’ll likely go to it. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Fiscal Redistribution" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer, and at this point in the season still do not have strong views on most of the debated T issues like “FR = tax and transfer” or “FJ = no subsets.” From grad school studying health policy, "Social Security can be turned into single-payer health insurance" seems a bit absurd, but I’ll let evidence dictate decisions.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

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

Hello! Please do not go too fast and prioritize clarity. I value argument and style equally. Approach each round as an opportunity to learn and with respect for your opponents. Also, remember to extend your points properly, otherwise they won't be flowed. Finally, please weigh so I can see the comparative between the impacts presented in the round. Good luck!

Include me on the email chain: manjusrivats@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. Please be respectful and do not spread. I will flow the debate so please keep the debate clean and easy to follow.

As a parent PF judge, I understand the unique dynamics and challenges of adjudicating Public Forum (PF) debate rounds involving young debaters. My role is to ensure a fair and educational experience for all participants while prioritizing respectful discourse and critical thinking skills development. Below are the guidelines I follow and the expectations I have for debaters in my rounds.

Guidelines:

1. Fairness: Fairness is paramount. I expect debaters to engage in honest argumentation and to refrain from any form of cheating or unfair practices, such as misrepresentation of evidence or spreading misinformation.

2. Respect: Respect for opponents, judges, and the debate space is non-negotiable. I expect debaters to maintain a civil tone throughout the round, avoiding personal attacks or disrespectful language.

3. Clarity: Clear communication is essential. Debaters should articulate their arguments logically and concisely, making it easy for judges to follow their line of reasoning.

4. Evidence: Debaters should provide credible evidence to support their claims. I encourage debaters to cite reputable sources and to analyze the evidence effectively within the context of the debate.

5. Time Management: Debaters must manage their time effectively, ensuring that they use their allotted speaking time efficiently and allowing their opponents equal opportunity to present their arguments.

6. Adaptability: I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies and arguments based on their opponents' responses and the flow of the debate round.

7. Engagement: Active engagement with the substance of the resolution is key. Debaters should address the central issues of the debate and respond directly to their opponents' arguments.

8. Sportsmanship: Debaters should display good sportsmanship at all times, accepting defeat gracefully and congratulating their opponents on a well-debated round.

Name: Evans Chen

School Affiliation: Potomac Debate

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 2 years

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 4 years

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0 years

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0 years

Speed of Delivery: Please speak at a reasonable pace. Slower/clearer speeches > faster/denser speeches. 

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?): Focus on the big picture, I won't care much for small dropped arguments. 

Role of the Final Focus: Crystalize your arguments and do not bring up any new points or evidence. 

Extension of Arguments into later speeches: If it's a voter, extend. 

Topicality: No.

Plans: No. 

Kritiks: No kritiks or theory. 

Flowing/note-taking: I will try my best to flow all arguments, but I am quite rusty so bear that in mind. Speaking slower will be to your advantage. 

Do you value argument over style?  Style over argument?  Argument and style equally? Equally 

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes, mention the argument in every speech until your opponents respond or the debate ends. Do not mention an argument in constructive, have it be dropped by your opponents, then never mentioned it again until the final focus. 

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? Begin with the opponents' case and if time permits, cover the opponents' rebuttal. 

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Do not bring up new arguments in the grand cross. The last speech I will take new arguments is the summary. 

Eagan High School, Public Forum Coach (2018-Present), National Debate Forum (2016-2019), Theodore Roosevelt High School, Public Forum Coach (2014-2018)
She/Her Pronouns
Also technically my name is now Mollie Clark Ahsan but it's a pain to change on tabroom :)
Always add me to your email chain - mollie.clark.mc@gmail.com

Flowing
I consider myself a flow judge HOWEVER the narrative of your advocacy is hugely important. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I really dislike blippy arguments so try to condense the round (kick out of stuff you don't go for) and make sure you use your time efficiently.

Extensions
Good and clean warrant and impact extensions are what will most likely win you the round. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. Defense is NOT sticky— defense that is unextended is dropped. Similarly, offense (including your link chain and impact) that is unextended is dropped.

Evidence
Ethical use and cutting of evidence is incredibly important to me, while debate may be viewed as a game it takes place in the real world with real implications. It matters that we accurately represent what's happening in the world around us. Please follow all pertinent tournament rules and regulations - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

Speed, Speaking, & Unconventional Issues
- I can flow next to everything in PF but that does not mean that it's always strategically smart. Your priority should be to be clear. Make sure you enunciate so that your opponent can understand you, efficiency and eloquence in later speeches will define your speaks.
- Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme. I really dislike yelling and super-aggressive crossfire in particular. Understand your privileges and use that to respect and empower others.
- Trigger/content warnings are appreciated when relevant.
- Theory and K debate are not my favorite, but I'll hear you out and evaluate it in the round. But talking to folks I'm pretty convinced that I'd enjoy a round with a performance K! So please consider this an invitation (though note that I really only want to see it if you're really passionate about it and truly believe in it).
- If push comes to shove I'm technically tech>truth with the caveat that I believe strongly that debate has real-world implications. So I reserve some discretion to deal with arguments that are outrageous or harmful in a more traditional PF way.

Speaker Point Breakdown
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Eloquent, good analysis, and strong organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Hi, I'm Jeremiah!

Please add me to the chain: cohn.jeremiah@gmail.com.

Postround me/ask questions if you want

+.2 speak for good Bladee references

Experience

4 years of HS debate for Summit Highschool in NJ, Graduated 2022

4 years PF, 8 gold bids, and 4 silvers with 4 different partners, mainly ran substance & theory

1 year LD, reached 3 bid rounds ran stock/impact turns, theory/friv theory, tricks, Marx and Agonism, contracts, and a couple of NIB NCs

2 years of College Policy at Binghamton University, I'm a 2N, PoMo, Impact turns, theory. Qualified to NDT & cleared at CEDA twice.

Harrison RR (4/6/24)

I do not know anything about the LD topic

TLDR:

I will eval anything -- dogmatism is cringe & I hated losing cuz I read the wrong thing and the judge refused to evaluate -- be good at what you do and have a good time (morally abhorrent arguments are the obvious exception)

open cross & flex prep are fine

Clash Debates: I am probably 40/60 in clash debates -- I think T is a beautifully elegant technical argument & K teams often get bogged down in the LBL battle instead of winning the top-level stuff. My standards for T teams have also increased, your blocks should be contextual to the debate & the best 2NRs on T are not only technically proficient but also very persuasive.

The aff: win impact turns, top-level framing, or debate is bad.

The neg: win truth testing, limits, or good TVAs

That being said I love T vs policy affs.

Defaults: CIs, no RVI, presume neg in LD/Policy, 1st speaker in PF

Auto L for intentionally x-ist arguments.

I reserve the right to stop the round for safety stuff (ie misgendering)

One Winner / One Loser

Gut-check yourself, if you're debating a novice try to make the round accessible

clarity > speed, auditory processing disorder = slurred words are incoherent to me

LD

My wiki from HS to get an idea of what I read: https://opencaselist.com/hsld21/Summit/JeCo

I read way more K now in college but my heart wishes I could still read NIBs

I am also cool w/ policy style debate but I will probably just enjoy it less

I never did trad LD

Speaks are fake and shouldn't be a tie-breaker -- why arent we using Opp W% like every other competitive activity?

I love a good case debate :)

Will eval "vote after x speech" but it requires me evaluating the rest of the round

Skep: I keep judging rounds w/ this super generic skep NC, I find it really boring, do with this information as you please. I enjoy paradoxes & random NIBs much more. Also, Skep vs non-pomo K affs probably caps ur speaks but is not an unwinnable position.

Policy

All the LD stuff applies here I could totally see myself voting for tricks in a policy round and would probably find it really funny

I debate policy in college

Good case debate >> lots of off. I think case debate wins rounds.

I'm also a sucker for good impact turns (spark, cap good, dedev etc)

Reasonability makes way more sense in this activity, I love theory though so if you have a good abuse story go for it.

PF

probability weighing: unwarranted weighing will cap your speaks I don't have any idea of what is probable until technical concessions are made.

I debated this for 4 years of HS, but I pay 0 attention to the PF meta now

Theory was the a-strat when I could get away with it in PF

Warrant comparison and weighing r super important

TERMINAL IMPACTS PLEASE

Yes silly extinction scenarios but also yes warrants :)

I will tank your speaks for badly warranted % weighing. I have no idea what is probable or not. I care what is won in round.

1st Summary doesn't need to extend conceded defense, but ff probably should

My favorite PF arguments were tricky overviews that somehow framed out the opps offense or triggered presumption, if you do something like this well you will love your speaks.

Lay judge

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

GENERAL COMMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ballot acts as a teaching tool NOT a punishment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLICY

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

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

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

A little about me:

I competed on the regional GA circuit and national circuit for 5 years in PF, and graduated in '19. I'm now a senior at Brown. This is my second year as the PF coach at Park City HS.

As a judge, I'm pretty chill:

- I'm fine with speed but, wouldmuch preferyou to not spread. If you do, you must email a speech doc.

- I don't flow cross- if something important happens, tell me in a speech or it will not be on my flow.

- Tech>truth. Obv exception is evidence ethics - if you claim that a source says something and it doesn't, I will not look kindly at that argument.

- I won't evaluate OFFENSE that is extended through ink from rebuttal to final focus- if you want me to vote for you on it, extend it through summary.

- Also- I expect the second rebuttal to respond to all of the offense in the round. Let me just add - given that y'all have four minutes, I also expect interaction with the defense read in the first rebuttal, but I'll be more lenient with accepting those responses in summary.

- On intervention - the only time I will intervene is if there is no comparative weighing, or quite honestly, weighing at all. I don't want to ever do this. So if you'd like to win or lose the debate based on the content of the round, weigh.

- additionally, meta-weighing. Especially if you and your opponents are going for different weighing mechanisms, please tell me why I should prefer your weighing mechanism !

- I understand the appeal of progressive debate, and won't automatically down-vote a team that runs it. However, I prefer judging rounds that don't involve frivolous theory. If there has been an egregious offense in the round and/or you feel very passionately about your theory shell, I will judge it. Otherwise, please don't run theory in front of me.

- Unfortunately, I am still not the best at evaluating K's and their place in PF. That's not to say you can't run a K in front of me, but I might not evaluate it in the way you'd like me to.

- For speaks - my range is normally between 27 - 29.7. I don't usually give perfect speaks, or below a 27. But if you are blatantly sexist, homophobic, or racist, that will change.

- On evidence : I'll be a part of email chains in rounds. Please share it with nylacrayton@gmail.com. I might not read every piece of evidence in full, but if you tell me to read something during, or after, the round I will.

- Speech times - I will continue to flow your speech up until ~10 seconds after your time is up. I will stop listening and stop flowing if you continue beyond that time.

• Prep - I keep track of prep in the round, and I am always a bit annoyed when you go over that time. If you prep for more than 30 seconds past your prep time, expect to lose speaks.

- Pre-flowing : please finish before the round starts.

Anyways... if you have any more questions, either ask me before the round or shoot an email to nylacrayton@gmail.com !

I am a former policy debater who has coached Public Forum for the last year. Whatever arguments you would like to run, go ahead. I am open to any argument being run by either side, however I tend not to vote on theory arguments. Unless you can prove that an egregious abuse has been run in the round, I don't necessarily think that theory has a place. love kritiks and all other weird, quirky arguments you can think of. 

Spreading is okay, however if I do not have your argument on my flow then it never happened in the round. You must ensure I have all your arguments written down so that I can judge the round equally. 

Most importantly: 

-Have fun

-Do not steal prep, I will run the prep timer if I think you are stealing prep. 

-Whatever happens in a debate round stays in a debate round. Do not be sour/braggy about losing/winning the round. In other words, be a good sport. 

-Any reference to Star Wars during your speech has the potential to increase your speaker points marginally. 

Mariel Cruz - Updated 1/3/2024

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara University, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I've judged most debate events pretty frequently, except for Policy and Congress. However, I was a policy debater in college, so I'm still familiar with that event. I mostly judge PF and traditional LD, occasionally circuit LD. 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.

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 other debate 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.

Before the round begins, I kindly request that the teams send me their cases in advance. This will greatly assist me in keeping track of the arguments and taking thorough notes during the round. Although this is not a requirement, it will help to improve the quality of my decision and feedback. I would like to assure you that the case information will be kept confidential and will only be used for the purpose of the round. Teams will not be penalized if they choose not to share their case. This request is solely aimed at enhancing the academic outcome of the round.

How I base my decision: Warrants (45%), Weighing Mechanism (45%), Impact (10%)

• It is important to note that while teams may focus on the magnitude of their impact, a strong argument also requires a well-supported warrant and a method for comparing and weighing arguments. A lack of these elements can weaken the overall effectiveness of an argument.

• Tips to Strengthen Warrants in a Debate: 1) Challenge or defend the logic or evidence presented by your opponent instead of simply restating your own argument. This will bring new information to the discussion and help me understand the issue better. 2) During crossfire, ask "how" and "why" questions that focus on the reasoning behind your opponent's argument. Using common sense can also be valuable, as it can support a hypothesis that is backed by evidence and basic reasoning.

• Examples of weighing mechanisms: utilitarianism, cost-benefit analysis, priority based on urgency or importance, ethical principals: fairness, justice or equality, trade-offs.

Speaker points: Content & preparedness Quality (80%), speed (20%)

Your speaker points will primarily be determined by the quality of your arguments. The rest of the score will take into account your speaking speed. Public Forum debates should be clear and easily understood by all listeners, and speaking at a moderate pace will ensure everyone is able to fully follow and engage with the debate. I am comfortable with average speaking speeds, but if there are any misunderstandings due to excessive speed, it's important for the speakers to remember that it is ultimately their responsibility to communicate their ideas clearly.

Third year out from Bronx Science debated all four years and was pretty successful (bids, broke at TOC). I don't know much about very tech argumentation (Ks, theory), but feel free to run them (just explain them well). I am very compelled by comparative and uniqueness weighing and detailed warranting!!! All offense should be responded to in the next speech and turns (esp if ur going for them) should be fully extended with warranting and weighing. I will not vote off blippy extensions.

Speak slowly and clearly so I can process your arguments. I am a lay judge who employs simplified flow techniques.

I am judging who most effectively displays solid logic, lucid reasoning, and in-depth analysis. Your reasoning should be supported by credible evidence, however evidence does not replace an effective argument. You should address all of your opponents arguments, even if you don't focus on them during Summary or Final Focus.

You will lose speaker points if you try to talk over your opponent during crossfire. Civility matters.

Name: Liz Dela Cruz Contact Info: lizdelacruz@me.com PF Paradigm (Updated 021621)

Expirence: I debated and coached Policy (Cross-ex) debate for a number of years. If you want to know what I did, scroll down, I have my Cross-Ex (Policy) Paradigm below.

Note:

I am a flow judge! I will provide a Google Doc Link to use. I prefer this to an email chain because I there is a delay in getting emails sometimes. I also don't like putting the evidence in the chat function. It is easier for me to go back and review the evidence.

I also usually always pop up a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my Paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.

General:

1. Debate is about having a good time and learning, please be respectful to everyone. Just remember that this is just a round and there will be another. Do your best and have fun.

2. Due to my policy background, I like Signposting. Please let me know where to go on the flow. Think of my flow as a blank slate. You tell me what to write and where. Moving contentions or switching from Pro flow to Con flow? Tell me.

3. I will vote for FW, independent Voting issues, and Pre-req arguments. But there needs to be enough substance for me to do so. If you decided to go for any of these, make sure to extend the case evidence that is needed to back it up. If not, it tends to be hard for me to vote on it.

4. I debated both theory and K in debate. If you want to do it, I am fine with it, but make sure to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic and your corresponding side.

5. If there is something said in Cross and you would like to use it in the round I am fine with it. But you need to make sure that you bring it in the speech to make it binding.

6. Just saying cross-apply case doesn’t mean anything. Or extend …. Card from case- give me substance and warrants for why you are extending it for me to consider it.

Summary/FF:

1. Make sure to extend the arguments and evidence from the Case to the summary and from the Summary to the Final Focus. It is key make sure to extend and explain.

2. You can only use what you extend in the Summary in the Final Focus.

3. I am a big fan of weighing! Magnitude, scope, impact analysis, substance love it all. Makes my job easier.

4. Break it down! Give me voting issues!

Speed:

1. I did policy, speed is not an issue. Please don’t ask me if you were to fast. I can hear you.

2. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If you are concerned about me not flowing your speech, then slow down and enunciate!

3. I will not tell you clear or slow, those things are for you to work on as a debater. If you are worried about it, then do speaking drills before the round and speak slower.

Policy (Cross-Ex) Paradigm (Updated 041715)

Affiliation: SouthWestern College, Weber State University

Paperless Ish: Flashing is Preferred: Prep time ends when you hit "save on the USB". Flashing is not considered part of prep time. If you take more than two minutes to save on the USB and get files flashed over, I will ask that you "run prep time". If you are going to do an email chain and would like to put me on it feel free. My email is listed above. If teams have spandies and tubs and USE 60% or more paper in a debate, will get some sort of candy or asian yummyness!

Experience: I was a policy debater for SouthWestern College. We run socialism and sometimes not socialism but more often than not it’ll be socialism. Did I mention we run socialism?

Voting Style: Do what you want but make sure it’s on my flow. Be clear and concise and tell me how I should interpret the round. Don’t make the assumption that I’ll randomly agree with your arguments. Spell it out for me so that there is 100% chance I get it. Spend time on the overview or underview. Make it very clear where I should be voting and why. This is something that makes my life easy and the life of all judges easy. Paint me a picture using your arguments. Give me reasons why I should prefer your position over theirs. The clearer the debate is the easier it will be to vote for you. Heck clear up the debate if it gets messy you’ll get nice speaker points. See how I’m telling you all to do the work? That’s because the debaters not the judge should be deciding how the judge should judge. I’m an open canvas. Paint me a nice picture. Just no nemo.

Speed and flowing: There’s fast and then there’s fast. As much as I’d like to admit I can keep up with a giant card dump in the neg block with a billion arguments, it’s just not going to happen. I can keep up with most speed reading. It’ll be easier for me to get your arguments down on my flow if you slow down during the tag/citation so I can actually hear it super well. If you spread your tags and I’m not keeping up, that’s on you as a debater. Arguing when you lose because I didn’t have that card or arg flowed when you made it a blippy mess isn’t going to do anything so don’t even try. That being said, I keep a very concise flow. And what you say in the 2nr and 2ar will be what I vote on. Policy

Argument Issues: Case: I feel like sometimes case debates get overlooked a lot. If you’re aff, don’t be afraid to use your case as giant offense if the other team is only to go 1 or so off. Good cases can swill outweigh da’s and K impacts if done well.

Non-Traditional Affs I evaluate Non-traditional Affs the same as traditional ones. However, there are things I like clearly defined and explained: 1. Explanation of advocacy 2. Role of the Ballot 3. Role of the Judge 4. Why is your message/mission/goal important.

Topicality I don't really care to much for T, but I will vote on it. I haven't voted yet on T being a reverse voting issue, but I do believe that T is a voting issue. I also tend to lean towards competing interpretations versus reasonability. Although, if the argument and work is there for reasonability, I will vote on it. Especially if the other team does not do the work that is needed on Topicality.

Theory Just saying things like "reject the team" or "vote Aff/Neg" typically doesn't do it for me. I would much rather hear, "reject their argument because it … blah blah blah." On the other side, saying "reject the argument not the team" is not enough for me to not consider it. I need solid reasons to reject the team like abuse. Actual abuse in round based on what was run is very convincing.

Performance I like watching performances. Since I judge by my flow, it allows me to separate myself from how I evaluate the round. Please note: Just because I am expressive during the debate does not always mean that I am leaning to your side. I am a very expressive person and thus why I judge strictly by my flow. So if there are points that you want me to highlight, pull them out in the later speeches. It will help with clarification and clash.

Kritiks I like kritiks. That being said a lot of mumbo jumbo gets thrown around a K debate. If you want me to pull the trigger on the K I need to know how it functions. Explain the rhetoric of your K to me in the block. Don’t assume I know what your alt is and what it will do in conjunction to the aff. That’s your job to make sure I know. Explain what your alt is and how it solves not only the impacts you read but also the aff’s or why the aff’s impacts don’t matter. Don’t assume that I’ll vote for “reject the ***” alts. Spend time in the block and in the 2nr how your K works in the round. Give me a picture of what the world of the K looks like and what the world of the aff looks like.

DA Not all disads are created equal. The Aff should attack all parts of the DA. Impact calculus is a must.

CP I believe that CPs should compete with the 1AC. Not only does this give better clash, but it also allow the 2A to defend their Aff.

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 28 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and Senior Instructor. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

CONGRESS PARADIGM IS BELOW THIS PF Paradigm

PF:

ALMOST EVERY ROUND I HAVE JUDGED IN THE LAST 8 YEARS WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS, AND 100% MORE ANALYSIS OF THOSE 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS. A Narrative, a Story carries so much more persuasively through a round than the summary speaker saying "we are going for Contention 2".

I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!

I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.

Claim/warrant/evidence/impact is NOT a debate cliche; It is an Argumentative necessity! A label and a blip card is not a developed argument!

Unless NUCLEAR WINTER OR NUCLEAR EXTINCTION HAS ALREADY OCCURED, DON'T BOTHER TO IMPACT OUT TO IT.

SAVE K'S FOR POLICY ROUNDS; RUN THEORY AT YOUR OWN RISK- I start from ma place that it is fake and abusive in PF and you are just trying for a cheap win against an unprepared team. I come to judge debates about the topic of the moment.

YOU MIGHT be able to convince me of your sincerity if you can show me that you run it in every round and are President of the local "Advocacy for that Cause" Club.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.

Please NARROW the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

There is a difference between "passionate advocacy" and anger. Audio tape some of your rounds and decide if you are doing one or the other when someone says you are "aggressive".

NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.

In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINITELY in play here!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

1: The first thing I am looking for in every speech is ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY. 2. The second thing I am looking for is CLASH; references to other speakers & their arguments

3. The third thing I am looking for is ADVOCACY, supported by EVIDENCE

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS IS A SPEAKING EVENT, NOT A READING EVENT! I WILL NOT GIVE EVEN A "BRILLIANT" SPEECH A "6" IF IT IS READ OFF A PREPARED SHEET/TUCKED INTO THE PAD OR WRITTEN ON THE PAD ITSELF; AND, FOR CERTAIN IF IT IS READ OFF OF A COMPUTER OR TABLET.

I value a good story and humor, but Clarity and Clash are most important.

Questioning and answering factors into overall placement in the Session.

Yes, I will evaluate and include the PO, but it is NOT an automatic advancement to the next level; that has gotten a bit silly.

This is my first year judging PF. This means that you must do your job to adapt to me as a judge, but at the same time I will do my best to follow what you say and take notes.

Please speak slowly, and explain everything that you are saying very clearly. Do not skip any steps in your logical chains – things that are intuitive to you might not seem that way to me. If you see me lift up my pen or not write anything for a while, it means you are going too fast for me. Slow down and speak at an understandable pace.

I will do my best to judge the round fairly as long as you do your best to convince me why you should win. Please speak in a conversational tone – don’t yell – and be as persuasive as you can.

hey! i'm katheryne. i debated natcirc for whitman for 3 years, went to toc 3 times, toc sems senior yr, ranked high junior and senior yr blah blah, now am a sophomore at uchicago and assistant coach at taipei american school. i will flow and can evaluate whatever, with a preference for some good, hearty substance rounds. if you wanna get wacky and wild, scroll down and read some stuff at the bottom.

putting aside my personal preferences and just thinking about what i'm capable of: am a v good judge for substance! pretty good judge for Ks (but hate bad K debate and will give higher speaks + often the W to a team that responds well)! pretty bad judge for theory (have voted for it but it makes my head hurt and causes a questionable decision every time)! hate IVIs! what on earth is an IVI! just read a shell!

i will try to adapt to the panel i'm on for you - if you prefer that means i judge like a lay when on a two lay panel lmk and i will try. but it also means feel free to kick me and go for the two lay ballots! similarly if i'm with two theory judges and that's your strat, go for it! my preferences should not dictate your strategy in outrounds.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.com to the chain.

** preferences:

pretty standard tech judge i think. weighing is the first place i look to evaluate, every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need to be responded to in next speech, links and responses must be extended with warrants (not just card names), i love narrative, speed is chill but if i'm flowing off your doc you're probs getting a 28, nothing is sticky but can't go for stuff you conceded ink on earlier, clash is fun. when you have two competing claims (links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc) you need to compare them! if no offense i presume neg. have said wayyyy more in my paradigm about my substance prefs but took most of the specific stuff out cuz it got too long, but feel free to ask me anything!!!

signposting has gotten really bad, especially in doc-heavy rounds when frontlining. plz signpost or i cant flow and then youll be upset and its a whole thing

no matter what type of round, i will make my decisions by figuring what weighing is won, then looking at what pieces of offense link into that weighing, then figuring out if they are won. that means the simplest path to my ballot is winning weighing + one argument. i love good weighing debates!

** can i read xyz in front of you?

experience: by the end of my career, i read everything from substance w/ framing, theory, IVIs, ks with topical links, and non-t ks w/ performances. having read all of these things, i am pretty strongly of the opinion that they are not executed very well in pf, to varying degrees.

no tricks

i won't evaluate any arg that is exclusionary. bigotry = L + as few speaks as i can give you.

stolen from my lovely debate partner sophia: DEBATE IS ABOUT EDUCATION, FEEL FREE TO USE ME AS A RESOURCE.You are always welcome to ask questions/contact me after the round. i very often get emails after rounds asking me for help with debate and i try to respond to all of them but if i don't facebook message me!!!

** theory section sigh:

if you are going to read theory in front of me, here are my preferences

• speedrun defaults: CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. theory must come speech after abuse, very hesitant to vote on out of round harms i am not married to any of these things and probs above mean willing to vote up arguments that say the opposite! ie -- messy rounds are better if u let me eval under reasonability!

• RVIs DO NOT REFER TO ARGUMENTS WHICH GARNER OFFENSE. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. i know there is disagreement on this, but to me this is what an RVI means, and under this definition i lean no RVIs/will default that way without warrants. I will still vote on a counter interp or a turn on theory EVEN IF NO RVIs IS WON.

• you need to extend layering arguments, ESPECIALLY if there are multiple offs! i will not default to give you theory first weighing or a drop the debater!

• in general, i refuse to give you shitty extensions on theory warrants just because you think i may know them. saying "norm setting" is not enough, explain how you get there and what it means.

ultimately: theory i am probably just not a good judge for! i never read theory much and in my experience these rounds become unresolvable messes based on technicalities that i don't understand well very quickly. if you disagree, think you are a very clear theory debater, or feel like rolling the dice go for it! basically: feel free to read theory if it's your main strat, not an auto-L, but absolutely no promises about my ability to evaluate it, pretty good chance i make a decision that makes no sense to you.

** k debate :0:0:0

among PF judges i am probably above average for Ks of all kinds, lot of experience debating and judging them in PF, but i really hate poorly executed Ks. reading a K poorly = real bad for your speaks, but will give a lot of feedback, so if that's what you're going for, bombs away! but i like good K debates, LOVE good K v K debates, and generally think it is educational to engage w that lit in high school. so hooray! however, the k debates i have judged so far have not been my fav. pls don't assume i'm super enthusiastic to see them.

if you are going to do k debate though, here are some thoughts i have: i like ks with topic links much more than non-t ks. i'm probably not a terrible judge for non-t stuff, but i also don't think i'm the ideal judge. i prefer really specific link debates. omission is not a good link. a general claim about their narrative without substantiation is not a good link. how does X piece of evidence (or even better X narrative which is shown in Y way in ABCD pieces of evidence) display the assumption you are critiquing? the same need for specificity also goes for the impact debate. also, the way alts function in pf is hyper event specific and is probably a good enough reason in itself that this isn't the activity for k debate tbh. you do not get to just fiat through an alt because you're reading a k and everyone is confused! if your alt is a CP and you can't get offense without me just granting you a CP you will not have offense! i think alts that rely on discourse shaping reality are fiiiiiiiiiiiiine i guess. i am open to different ways to see my ballot, but i am equally open to arguments about topicality that say it is not just a question of whether or not you have a topical link, but also the way you frame discussions of the topic in certain scenarios can make it non-topical -- harms/benefits resolutions being explicitly reframed is an example. i love perms! read more perms!

finally, some no-gos. having read all of these things, here are some things i think are bad: links of omission, discourse generating offense, and reject alts.

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

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar07@gmail.com .Please add Greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment).

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

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

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

Speed

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

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

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

Evidence

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

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

Rebuttal

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

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

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

Summary & Final Focus

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

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

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

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

Theory

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

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

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

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

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

Ks

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

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

Progressive weighing

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

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

Assorted things

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

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

Speaks

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

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

- Tricks: Nope.

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

Fourth year out from Hawken and did pretty well at ToC my senior year (he/him). My email: zelkaissi@uchicago.edu

General:

I would strongly prefer if you don't read theory or kritiks (but I'll try my best to evaluate them)

Warrant everything!

I don't care too much about cards. Warrants are more important to me than whether or not its carded. The only time I care about cards is if there's disagreement on a descriptive claim about the world, or some expertise/authority on a topic is needed.

If there is a disagreement on a fact, I will be very happy if you cite academic papers and describe why their methodology is better than some evidence the other team is citing

I like it when teams think creatively instead of mindlessly reading cards (including during rebuttal!). So make sure to implicate the evidence you read well, and don't be afraid to give analytical responses

I like strong and consistent narratives in round

To win my ballot you'll have to drop some arguments and focus on warranting, weighing, and winning the important ones.

Case/Rebuttal:

Slower cases are good, especially if its a hard to follow argument. I do really like creative and off-meta arguments though!

Signposting rebuttal well is very impressive and appreciated, so I'll reflect that in your speaker points

Summary/FF:

I won't vote for your argument unless I understand it, so please be clear!

Be very specific about what link/impact you're going for and how the defense you extend is terminal/not mitigatory so its easy to flow and I don't make a mistake.

Please weigh link-ins vs the link they read from case when you read turns

For cross, just give concise, direct answers, and don't be afraid to concede things. I don't like lots of fluff or evasiveness, and I'll reflect that in your speaker points.

After round, if you think you won but I drop you, please advocate for yourself at the end of the round/post round. I won't change my decision, but l still want to give you as much useful feedback as possible so please let me know if you disagree with anything I say in my decision

Random details (ask before round if you have any specific questions):

Speed in general is fine so long as both teams can understand everything

2nd rebuttal should respond to all offense-things in 1st rebuttal (including weighing)

Defense is sticky from first rebuttal to first final

First final can make new weighing, but second final can respond if its new in first final

Second case never has to respond to first case

For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for appropriate mechanisation of the arguments presented, proper analysis of their full impact and clear cohesion and structure in the way they are presented. I will also be paying special attention to how you explicate the magnitude and time frame of the arguments that you believe best sum your case and help your side and stance. A crucial part of that is that you strategically collapse on your strongest argument and zoom in on their magnitude.

In terms of style, the most important thing for me is that you are first and foremost respectful of one another. There is nothing wrong with having a strong assertive style, and even a strongly critical when questioning the other team, but you should never attack another's debate person or offend them in any way while doing that. Beyond this, I appreciate clarity and being able to follow your flow from one argument to the next - in other words, slow down!

Finally, I want to be able to see clear evidence of collaboration between you and your teammate in terms of how your arguments build on top of one another without duplication and how you refer to the points made by your teammate in your speech to enhance your analysis.

P.S: my face does weird things some times when I am engrossed in notetaking or deep thought, I can promise you it is no reflection of how you're doing so don't be intimidated and have fun!

I'm a Blake debate alumna and now an assistant coach.

Worlds Schools debate was my main format, and I competed it for three years at the national level. Speech content: include the principle debate, rebuild / extend arguments from the first speech in the second speeches, and become more globalized for third and fourth speeches. Weigh - and early!! Speaking style: signpost.

As a secondary format, I competed in PF. I am very familiar with the format, and lay on most topics. Read dates, signpost, and I prefer cards / evidence over paraphrasing.

Be nice to each other! At the end of the day, debating is about learning and having fun.

EMAILS FOR EMAIL CHAINS: blakedocs@googlegroups.com and sierra@u.northwestern.edu

Debate is a fun competitive research game. Ask questions if you have them.

Lay judge, parent of east coast debater. Please avoid complex jargon, and all progressive debate (eg. no theory, Ks, "weird underviews" as my child tells me). Go slow, be clear, I will be flowing.

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.  Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.

Online Judging:

Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

• Policy and LD since 1998
• Parli and PF since 2002
• WSDC and WUDC since 2009
• Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
• Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
• Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
• James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
• SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
• Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

• If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
• Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
• Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
• If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
• Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

• I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
• I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
• Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
• If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
• Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
• If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
• Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

• I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
• If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
• Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

• CX:
• Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
• If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
• I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
• With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
• Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
• L-D:
• The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
• I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
• In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
• I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
• PF:
• I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
• Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
• Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
• Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
• CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.  If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech.  If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech, 
• SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.  My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
• GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
• FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
• Parliamentary:
• Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
• My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
• "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
• Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
• Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
• I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
• I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
• If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
• Limited-Prep
• Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
• Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
• Interp/Platforms/Congress
• How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

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

Hello! I’m a second-year out, debated in PF for Ransom Everglades for 3 years on the nat circuit. Now I coach and do parli in college. (If you're a senior and going to college in the Northeast ask me about APDA!)

if there is anything I can do to accommodate you before the round or you have any questions about anything after the round, reach out on Messenger (Cecilia Granda-Scott) or email me.

PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND

TLDR:

tech judge, all standard rules apply. My email is cecidebate@gmail.com for the chain.

my face is very expressive – i do think that if i make a face you should consider that in how you move forward

Safety > everything else. Run trigger warnings with opt-outs for any argument that could possibly be triggering. I will not evaluate responses as to why trigger warnings are bad.

If you say “time will begin on my first word, time begins in 3-2-1, time will start now, first an off-time roadmap” I will internally cry. And then I will think about the fact that you didn’t read or listen to my paradigm, which will probably make me miss the first 7 seconds of your speech.

Card names aren’t warrants. If someone asks you a question in cross, saying “oh well our Smith card says this” is not an answer to WHY or HOW it happens. Similarly, please extend your argument, and don’t just “extend Jones”. I don’t flow card names, so I literally will not know what evidence you’re referring to.

If you are planning on reading/hitting a progressive argument, please go down to that specific section below.

Please don’t call for endless pieces of evidence, it’s annoying. Prep time is 3 minutes.

More specific things in round that will make me happy:

Past 230-ish words per minute I’ll need a speech doc. I hate reading docs and tbh would vastly prefer to have a non-doc round but I have come to understand that nobody listens when I say this so send me the doc I suppose. Also: I promise that my comprehension really is slower than people think it is so stay safe and send it

signpost signpost signpost

"The flow is a toolbox not a map" is the best piece of debate knowledge I ever learned and I think PF has largely lost backhalf strategy recently so if you do interesting smart things I will reward you

How I look at a round:

Whichever argument has been ruled the most important in the round, I go there first. If you won it, you win! If no one did, then I go to the next important argument, and so forth.

Please weigh :) I love weighing. I love smart weighing. I love comparative weighing. Pre-reqs and short circuits are awesome. Weighing makes me think you are smart and makes my job easier. You probably don’t want to let me unilaterally decide which argument is more important - because it might not be yours!

Speech Stuff:

Yes, you have to frontline any arguments you are going for. And turns. And weighing.

Collapsing is strategic. You should collapse. If you’re extending 3 arguments in final focus…why? Quality over quantity.

You need to extend your entire warrant, link, and impact for me to vote on an argument. This applies to turns too. If a turn does not have an impact, then it is not something I can vote on! (You don’t have to read an impact in rebuttal as long as you co-opt and extend your opponents’ impact in summary). Everything in final focus needs to be in summary. If you say something new in final focus, I will laugh at you for wasting time in your speech on something I will not evaluate. I especially hate this if you do it in 2nd final focus.

The best final focuses are the ones that slow down a bit and go bigger picture. After listening to it, I should be able to cast my ballot right there and repeat your final word for word as my RFD.

Progressive:

don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments. aka - i'm not going to evaluate "oh well i don't know how to respond to this". it's okay if you haven't learned prog and don't know how to respond, i don't need super formal responses, just try to make logical analysis; but i'm not going to punish the team who initiated a prog argument because of YOUR lack of knowledge (if you would like to learn about theory, you can ask me after the round I also went to a traditional school and had to teach myself)

I dislike reading friv prog on novices or to get out of debating SV. just be good at debate and beat your opponents lol

Disclosure/paraphrasing – I cut cards and disclosed. I don’t actually care super much about either of these norms (I actually won 3 disclosure rounds my senior year before we got lazy and didn’t want to have more theory rounds). So like, go have fun, but I am not a theory hack. I won’t vote for:

• first-3-last-3 disclosure because that is fake disclosure and stupid

• Round reports, I think this new norm is wild and silly

I learned the basics of Ks and hit a couple in my career, now have coached/judged several more, but not super well versed in literature (unless its fem). Just explain clearly, and know that if you're having a super complicated K round you are subjecting yourself to my potential inability to properly evaluate it. With that:

• Identity/performances/talking about the debate space/explaining why the topic is bad = that’s all good.

• If you run ‘dadaism’ or ‘linguistics’ I will be upset that you have made me listen to that for 45 minutes, and I’ll be extra receptive to reasons why progressive arguments are bad for the debate space; you will definitely not get fantastic speaks even if I begrudgingly vote for you because you won the round.

I hate reading Ks and just spreading your opponents out of the round. Please don’t make K rounds even harder to keep up with in terms of my ability to judge + I’m hesitant to believe you’re actually educating anyone if no one can understand you.

when RESPONDING to prog: i've found that evidence ethics are super bad here. It makes me annoyed when you miscontrue critical literature and read something that your authors would disagree with. Don't do it

Trix are for kids. If I hear the words “Roko’s Basilisk” I will literally stop the round and submit my ballot right there so I can walk away and think about the life choices that have led me here.

Frameworks:

• You need warrants as to why I should vote under the framework.

• I’m down with pre-fiat stuff (aka you just reading this argument is good) but you have to actually tell me why reading it is good and extend that as a reason to vote for you independent of the substance layer of the round

• Being forced to respond in second constructive is stupid. If your opponents say you do, just respond with “lol no I don’t” and you’re good.

• I WILL NOT VOTE FOR EXTINCTION FRAMING AS PREFIAT OFFENSE.

Crossfire:

Obviously, I’m not going to flow it. With that, I had lots of fun in crossfire as a debater. Be your snarkiest self and make me laugh! Some things:

• I know the difference between sarcasm and being mean. Be mean and your speaks will reflect that.

• My threshold for behavior in crossfire changes depending on both gender and age. For example: if you are a senior boy, and you’re cracking jokes against a sophomore girl, I probably won’t think you’re as funny as you think you are.

• If you bring up something in grand that was not in your summary, I will laugh at you for thinking that I will evaluate it in final focus. If your opponent does this and you call them out for it, I will think you’re cool.

Speaks:

Speaks are fake, you’ll all get good ones.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic etc I WILL give you terrible speaks. Every judge says this but I don’t think it’s enforced enough. I will actually enforce this rule.

Parent judge with 4 years of experience, I do flow the entire round.

If possible, please make it easy for me, collapse or go for a very well explained turn.

I am not a a pro and wont necessarily understand all the jargon and nuance.

My prefs:

1. yes - signpost; off-time roadmaps, extending from SUM to FF;

2. warrants > blips = I will have a hard time voting for poorly explained arguments;

3. no - spreading, anything new in 2nd SUM or FF;

4. Happy to skip grand-X if you are...

5. If K and Theory is read, I will do my best, but no promises that I will do a good job of it.. so swim at your own risk.

you can add me to email chains and case - viettagrinberg@gmail.com

Background:

I am a mathematician at The College of New Jersey who participated in Parliamentary Debate in college. Highlights included serving on the organizing committee for the World Universities Debate Championship when held in Princeton, NJ, and arguing in a debate that the New York Times should have a daily sports section (it didn't then, but does now!).

Preferences:

Fred Astaire did not have a great singing voice, but he was a good singer as he clearly enunciated the wonderful lyrics of Irving Berlin and Cole Porter. Similarly, arguments are most effective when they are clearly articulated and can be understood. Also, it is the quality of the argument, and not just having abundance of facts, that is most convincing.

Paradigm:

I am mostly a traditional Flow Judge and will minimize my intervention in the round. Please give me a clear way to vote for you and remember that a persuasive argument succeeds on both the intellectual and emotional levels. Do not exceed your time limits and in the crossfire, do not talk over the other debaters and allow the other side enough time to ask their questions.

Specifics:

Case - Don't have any clear contradictions. I will vote off glaring flaws, though small flaws need to be pointed out by the other team. For example, don't have C1 be promoting X and C2 be getting rid of X. Put your strongest foot first. I don't approve of time sink arguments.

Cross - Please don't interrupt. Both teams need to share the time. Speaks will be deducted.

Rebuttal - Don't overuse jargon like "turns." Explain the logic. I care more about a clear and logical explanation of your warranting than 10 different responses on each contention.

Summary/Final Focus - Must extend in at least one of these speeches.

Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy

About me - former college policy debater, flow-centric, like all arguments but the politics DA (Elections gets a pass)

Debate is a game that can be played in a multitude of ways. It is the responsibility of the students to determine the parameters of the games and to call "foul" if they think someone has done something abusive. I will judge the round as it happens. Here are a few things about me that you might find useful when preparing for a round:

1. Flowing - I do my best to have as accurate a flow as possible while trying to capture but the context and citation of your arguments. Dropping arguments could be detrimental if your opponents extend and weight those arguments properly.
2. Observer not a Participant - I won't do work for you or insert myself into your debate. You will win OR lose based on the arguments in the round not my person opinion.
3. Style over Speed - swag is subjective - bring yours.
4. Petty but not Disrespectful - don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponent - but I must admit being petty is strategic.
5. Challenges - if you challenge someone and lose the challenge you lose the debate (this could also apply on theory debates depending on the debate - but not RVI's)

Universal Speaker Point Adjustments: all students are evaluated on their level. A 29 in novice is not the same as a 29 in open. 28 is my base for completing all your speeches and using all your speech time.

1. Wear a bowtie (+.5 point)
2. Be entertaining (tell jokes...if I laugh...you get points...if I don't you won't be punished) (+.5 point)
3. Be rude (-.5 point)
4. Don't use all your time (-.5 point)
5. Steal prep (-.5 point)

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me and ask. Students may request my flow and written feedback at the end of the debate if they want. I will only share it with the students in the round unless they consent to the flow being shared with other opponents.

I am a LAY Parent Judge. Please speak at a moderate pace, make your points very clear, and don't use too much debate jargon.

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (new this year!). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round. I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 275 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think sharing docs increases the likelihood of debaters trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

Kyle Hietala (he/him)
kylehietala@gmail.com

CURRENT:
Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)
Vice President, Coast Forensic League (CFL)

FORMER:
Coach: St. Luke's, Spence, Sidwell Friends
Competitor: LD, APDA

In the last 5 years, I've judged 249 rounds. I've voted AFF 115 (46%) vs NEG 134 (54%). I've been on 111 panels and squirreled 11 times (9%).

____

SUMMARY
Experienced, ‘truthful tech’ flow judge from a traditional debate background. I’m receptive to many arguments, styles, etc., but I prefer strategic case debate or substantive critical debate. Any clash-heavy strategy focused on well-warranted, comparative, topical argumentation should work well for you. I'm not a great judge for contemporary progressive debate (e.g. AFF Ks, performance, tricks, frivolous theory). I'm fine with moderate speed if you slow down on taglines, enunciate, inflect, etc., but I won't flow off the speech doc. Above all, please be kind and respectful to others. And have fun!

____

VOTING
I usually vote wherever the most thorough warranting and responsive weighing was done. If there's no meta-weighing by either team, I tend to prioritize probability/timeframe over scope/magnitude. I tend to value analysis (quality, depth) over assertion (quantity, breadth) on the flow. I'm unlikely to vote for something blippy and under-developed, even if it was conceded. I tend to vote against strategies I consider clash-evasive (e.g. frivolous theory, tricks, conditional CPs, unlinked Ks). Keep in mind that my own rhetorical responsibility is to cogently justify to the losing team why they lost, so being clear is to your advantage.

____

CASE/POLICY
I think debaters chronically misallocate time to stating the obvious about impacts (e.g. "extinction irreversible"), instead of comparing not-obvious details about warrants/evidence. Impact terminalization is fine, but I'm reluctant to vote for extreme impacts with brittle links – I'd prefer to hear probability analysis rather than nuclear war/extinction reductionism. AFF needs to show how their advocacy/plan creates solvency. I like framework-heavy case strategies that challenge net benefits/utilitarian policymaking, especially strategies focused on actor analysis and ethical obligations.

KRITIK
I like K debate, but I also find a lot of it to be obtuse. The link is the most important part of the kritik, because it tells me what you're critiquing/what your opponent did wrong. Links of omission are not links, and reject the AFF/resolution is not an alternative. I'm not comfortable with Ks that ask me to make judgments about a student's immutable identity.My favorite K debates are topically-relevant examinations of academic assumptions, especially in discourse/rhetoric.

THEORY/TOPICALITY
I'm receptive to theory/topicality when it's needed to check in-round abuse, but unreceptive to it for its own sake. An abundance of technical skill shouldn't excuse someone from playing fairly. I'm willing to intervene against debaters who think that baffling their opponent with frivolous theory entitles them to my ballot, and I'm also happy to intervene in favor of a debater who doesn't know the minutiae of theory shells, but is contesting something which is excluding them from the round.

Pronouns: She/her

For background, I debated PF 4 years with MVLA. As much as I might like to think I am a tech flow judge, in reality, I am very flay. If you see anything on my paradigm that you disagree with, feel free to ( nicely ) talk me out of it, I'm open to being persuaded.

First speaking teams: unresponded-to defense that you put on their case does not need to be extended, but if it is absolutely crucial to you winning, maybe consider bringing it up again (obviously you must respond to things if they are frontlined). Any offense must be in summary but I'll extend dropped turns as mitigation.

Second speaking teams: Turns and disads coming out of 1st rebuttal must be responded to or it's a drop, you can respond to terminal D in summary.

Both teams: I really do need clean extensions of all necessary links and impacts in summary and final focus if you want offense. This doesn't mean that you need to give me your whole case again, but I do need all the links necessary to access the impact you are going for. Make it clear !!!

You need cards, but more importantly warrants; I will buy a strong analytic over an unwarranted card. Extend logical warranting in addition to links cards/impacts otherwise, I won't want to vote on it

Please signpost by voter, links, or impacts (PLS number them, its greatly appreciated). I don't always catch card names and I guarantee I'll miss content if I don't know where to flow.

Miscellaneous

- Content warnings: you need to read a content warning if you are discussing sensitive topics or topics that may endanger people's safety. My preferred method is reading the warning before the round and providing your phone number so people can anonymously tell you if they are uncomfortable. You must have a backup case to read if someone is uncomfortable.

- Speaking: Some speed is fine, i'll say clear if I can't understand. Speaks are based mostly on content, I will bump if you pull off a cool strategy in round well.

-Cross: I generally don't listen at all, but I do catch things if they stand out (i.e. being rude/yelling, referencing "judge"), but if you concede something in cross it can be brought up in speeches. If I didn't hear it happen and the other team says it didn't, I just won't consider it.

- Theory/Progressive args: On the one hand I do think that theory can disadvantage new debaters or underfunded teams, but I also think its really fun and can lead to a lot of more positive changes in debate, so run at your own risk, and think about whether your shell or K or whatever is worth the exclusion. I think progressive args are super fun and I did run some while debating, that said I'm not an expert so if you do run them make sure to fully explain.

- I presume 1st speaking team if I need to.

- Weighing: "Strength of link," "urgency," and "clarity of impact" mean nothing unless you warrant and implicate them. Also, please do metaweighing if teams clash on weighing (which is almost always). I really do love a good weighing debate, please weigh.

-Collapsing: please collapse. I get it, sometimes you need to fill up a speech or you just feel like you'll be stronger if you keep all your args, but being able to very clearly defend one arg is really so much better than under covering a couple.

- Evidence: Don't lie. Even if it’s an accidental miscut, it’s still wrong. Find cards within a couple of minutes or I'll ask you to drop them. I'll call cards if you tell me to and if my decision hinges upon the validity of a card that's been highly contested.

- Please be respectful during the debate. I'm not afraid to tank speaks if you're being rude, and I will honestly be more likely to find a reason to drop you.

- If you're running econ arguments I feel the need to tell you that I am particularly bad at comprehending these, so simple explanations will be appreciated if you have time. Don't fret, I still treat it like any other argument, so even if I don't understand it I'll vote on it if you handle responses to it

- If you ignore my paradigm, I'm not gonna drop you (unless it's the bolded parts) so feel free to debate in the way that's most comfortable to you, this is just what I like.

- I attempt to be a visual judge, so if I'm nodding it means I understand and you can move on, if I'm frowning it means I'm confused, if I'm smiling it probably means that I think something interesting is going on.

I prefer teams email me their speech document to amyhu881@gmail.com before the round starts. Please do so asap as it takes a while for the email to arrive and sometimes the first email fail to reach me. It is Ok that you don't send me your speech doc but it will help me to understand your round.

Please time yourself. I wont keep track of the crossfires. Tell me what is the priority to weight and why your impact is bigger.

Keeping your arguments simple and logical. I can easily get lost if you talk too fast or provide me tons of information.

Please be calm and polite. When you getting hostile to your opponent, I will think you lose control because you know you fail the round.

Parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly.

This is the 2nd year that I've judged PF debating.

Please keep your delivery slow and clear. Stay calm. Respect your opponents.

Anyone who uses good humor in their speeches will receive extra speaker points.

Have fun!

I am a parent judge with no direct debate experience. Please speak at a normal pace and I will take notes along the way. During the debate round, I pay special attention to the dynamics of the interactions among debate teams and how well the partners collaborate as a team.  

Greetings everyone! My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director of forensics at The Bronx High School of Science in New York City. I am excited to judge your round! Considering you want to spend the majority of time prepping from when pairings are released and not reading my treatise on debate, I hope you find this paradigm "cheat sheet" helpful in your preparation.

2023 TOC Congress Update

Congratulations on qualifying to the 2023 TOC! It's a big accomplishment to be here in this room and all of you are to be commended on your dedication and success. My name is Timothy Huth and I'm the director at Bronx Science. I have judged congress a lot in the past, including two TOC final rounds, but I have found myself judging more PF and Policy in recent years. To help you prepare, here's what I would like to see in the round:

Early Speeches -- If you are the sponsor or early speaker, make sure that I know the key points that should be considered for the round. If you can set the parameters of the discourse of the debate, you will probably have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Middle Speeches -- Refute, advance the debate, and avoid rehash, obviously. However, this doesn't mean you can't bring up a point another debater has already said, just extend it and warrant your point with new evidence or with a new perspective. I often find these speeches truly interesting and you can have a good chance of ranking high on my ballot.

Late speeches -- I think a good crystallization speech can be the best opportunity to give an amazing speech during the round. To me, a good crystal speech is one of the hardest speeches to give. This means that a student who can crystal effectively can often rank 1st or 2nd on my ballot. This is not always the case, of course, but it really is an impressive speech.

Better to speak early or late for your ballot? It really doesn't matter for me. Wherever you are selected to speak by the PO, do it well, and you will have a great chance of ranking on my ballot. One thing -- I think a student who can show diversity in their speaking ability is impressive. If you speak early on one bill, show me you can speak later on the next bill and the skill that requires.

What if I only get one speech? Will I have any chance to rank on your ballot? Sometimes during the course of a congress round, some students are not able to get a second speech or speak on every bill. I try my very best to evaluate the quality of a speech versus quantity. To me, there is nothing inherently better about speaking more or less in a round. However, when you get the chance to speak, question, or engage in the round, make the most of it. I have often ranked students with one speech over students who spoke twice, so don't get down. Sometimes knowing when not to speak is as strategic as knowing when to speak.

Questioning matters to me. Period. I am a big fan of engaging in the round by questioning. Respond to questions strongly after you speak and ask questions that elicit concessions from your fellow competitors. A student who gives great speeches but does not engage fully in questioning throughout the round stands little chance of ranking high on my ballot.

The best legislator should rank first. Congress is an event where the best legislator should rank first. This means that you have to do more than just speak well, or refute well, or crystal well, or question well. You have to engage in the "whole debate." To me, what this means is that you need to speak and question well, but also demonstrate your knowledge of the rules of order and parliamentary procedure. This is vital for the PO, but competitors who can also demonstrate this are positioning themselves to rank highly on my ballot.

Have fun! Remember, this activity is a transformative and life changing activity, but it's also fun! Enjoy the moment because you are at THE TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS! It's awesome to be here and don't forget to show the joy of the moment. Good luck to everyone!

2023 - Policy Debate Update

I have judged many debates across all events except for policy debate. You should consider me a newer policy judge and debate accordingly. Here are some general thoughts to consider as you prepare for the round:

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Non-Topical Arguments: I am unlikely to understand Ks or non-topical arguments. I DO NOT have an issue with these arguments on principle, but I will not be able to evaluate the round to the level you would expect or prefer.

Topicality: I am not experienced with topicality policy debates. If you decide to run these arguments, I cannot promise that I will make a decision you will be satisfied with, but I will do my best.

Line-by-line: Please move methodically through the flow and tell me the order before begin your speech.

Judge Instruction: In each rebuttal speech, please tell me how to evaluate your arguments and why I should be voting for you. My goal is to intervene as little as possible.

Speed: Please slow down substantially on tags and analytics. You can probably spread the body of the card but you must slow down on the tags and analytics in order for me to understand your arguments. Do not clip cards. I will know if you do.

PF Paradigm - Please see the following for my Public Forum paradigm.

Add me to the email chain: My email is huth@bxscience.edu.

Cheat sheet:

General overview FOR PUBLIC FORUM

Experience: I've judged PF TOC finals-X------------------------------------------------- I've never judged

Tech over truth: Tech -------x------------------------------------------- Truth

Comfort with PF speed: Fast, like policy fast ---------x--------------------------------------- lay judge speed

Theory in PF: Receptive to theory ------x------------------------------ not receptive to theory

Some general PF thoughts from Crawford Leavoy, director of Durham Academy in North Carolina. I agree with the following very strongly:

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should be very good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

Now, back to my thoughts. Here is the impact calculus that I try to use in the round:

Weigh: Comparative weighing x----------------------------------------------- Don't weigh

Probability: Highly probable weighing x----------------------------------------------- Not probable

Scope: Affecting a lot of people -----------x------------------------------------ No scope

Magnitude: Severity of impact -------------------------x----------------------- Not a severe impact

(One word about magnitude: I have a very low threshold for responses to high magnitude, low probability impacts. Probability weighing really matters for my ballot)

Quick F.A.Q:

Defense in first summary? Depends if second rebuttal frontlines, if so, then yes, I would expect defense in first summary.

Offense? Any offense you want me to vote on should be in either case or rebuttal, then both summary and final focus.

Flow on paper or computer? I flow on paper, every time, to a fault. Take that for what you will. I can handle speed, but clarity is always more important than moving fast.

What matters most to get your ballot? Easy: comparative weighing. Plain and simple.

I think you do this by first collapsing in your later speeches. Boil it down to 2-3 main points. This allows for better comparative weighing. Tell me why your argument matters more than your opponents. The team that does this best will 99/100 times get my ballot. The earlier this starts to happen in your speeches, the better.

Overviews: Do it! I really like them. I think they provide a framework for why I should prefer your world over your opponent's world. Doing this with carded evidence is even better.

Signpost: It's very easy to get lost when competitors go wild through the flow. You must be very clear and systematic when you are moving through the flow. I firmly believe that if I miss something that you deem important, it's your fault, not mine. To help with this, tell me where you are on the flow. Say things like...

"Look to their second warrant on their first contention, we turn..."

Clearly state things like links, turns, extensions, basically everything! Tell me where you are on the flow.

Also, do not just extend tags, extend the ideas along with the tags. For example:

"Extend Michaels from the NYTimes that stated that a 1% increase in off shore drilling leads to a..."

Evidence: I like rigorous academic sources: academic journals and preeminent news sources (NYT, WashPo, etc.). You can paraphrase, but you should always tell me the source and year.

Theory in PF: I'm growing very receptive to it, but it really should be used to check back against abuse in round.

Pronouns: I prefer he/him/his and I kindly ask that you respect your opponents preferred gender pronoun.

Speed: Slow down, articulate/enunciate, and inflect - no monotone spreading, bizarre breathing patterns, or foot-stomping. I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary. I think this is an important check on ableism in rounds. This portion on speed is credited to Chetan Hertzig, head coach of Harrison High School (NY). I share very similar thoughts regarding speed and spreading.

Flay judge.

Hi there -

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

1. The Most Obvious - Be Nice!

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

2. Provide full cards.

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

3. Weigh it.

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

4. Make sure to time yourself.

5. Don’t spread.

Happy debating!

I am a lay judge with moderate experience on the topic . I am new to judging but I am familiar with the format. Please consider me a blank slate with respect to the arguments. Speak clearly and at a reasonable rate of speed. I will time speeches, cross ex, and prep time; I also recommend that debaters time their own speeches, cross ex, and prep time as well . Read citations and evidence clearly. When you paraphrase evidence, have the full original card available for review. My email address is simmijohn1@gmail.com

Qualification: I've competed in Speech and Debate for approximately six to seven years and have coaching and judging experience before and after my High School years. Most of my debating experience comes from Public Forum but I do have some involvement in World Style, CNDF, and British Parliamentary.

Judging Paradigm:

1. Speed is not a huge issue for me, but be considerate to everyone in the round so that contention taglines and pieces of evidence are clearly presented. (Be extra clear with presenting your contention taglines and refutation titles)

2. I will be flowing throughout the whole round, but refutations and reconstructions should be extended to the summary and final focus speeches. If contentions or refutations are dropped somewhere during the round, make sure to mention this in one of the speeches.

3. Summary and Final Focus speeches are the most important speeches in relation to making my decision at the end of the round. This also means that the team that can weigh-out arguments and present voter issues most effectively will most likely win the round.

4. Only have a framework if you are going to use it throughout the round.

5. Don't be rude.

Email- JKaminskii34@gmail.com

TLDR (updated 11/4/22)

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

My debate experience:

Current assistant PF coach at Trinity Prep

3 Years of NFA-LD Debate

4 Years of Public Forum debate

Paradigm-

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

PF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD

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

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

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

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

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

Please use content warnings for content related to SA or self-harm.

Hi! I'm Neel (they/them). I debated at Plano East (TX), starting out in circuit PF and debating circuit LD during my senior year. I now attend Michigan (I don't debate for the school) and would say that I'm somewhat removed from debate.

Yes, put me on the chain - gimmeurcards@gmail.com

Be mindful of how rusty I may be - go slower, explain topic jargon, and all that jazz - it'll be tremendously helpful for how confident I am in my decision and your speaks.

Tech > truth, but a combination is ideal. Don't be rude, because I can also decide that not being mean > tech.

I primarily find/found myself in debates that center around policy or kritikal positions both as a debater and a judge. I'm not very confident in my ability to adjudicate very fast and blippy theory/T, phil, or tricks debates. I'd say I'm a 1 for policy, a 1/2 for the kritik (aff or neg), a 3 for theory/T, and a 4/strike for phil or tricks.

For policy -

Impact turns are fine, but I refuse to listen to death good.

Evidence quality is your best friend in front of me.

I'm probably more open to letting CP theory debates unfold than other judges.

Read more than 1 argument on case please.

For the kritik -

I have a soft spot for cool K-affs, but I'm neutral on framework and all of the iterations you can go for.

Your overviews should have a purpose - apply stuff you say to the LBL and contextualize the things you are saying.

I've been in more debates about identity and the "stock" kritiks than pomo stuff - do with that what you will.

Cool case args are my jam (even presumption is cool).

For T/theory -

CIs, no RVIs, DTA for theory. DTD for T.

Huge fan of disclosure but I feel uncomfortable evaluating other violations sourced outside of round.

I'm very mid for frivolous shells.

Be organized and clear please.

For tricks and phil -

Not a great idea - I probably would barely be able to follow along a Philosophy 101 course.

If you want to read these, SLOW DOWN and number stuff.

Evil demons don't force me to vote aff and I only evaluate debates after the 2AR.

I honestly am just uninterested in 95% of this literature base - sorry.

For PF -

Good for all the progressive stuff and PF speed. I will hold you to a higher standard than most progressive PF judges.

Sticky defense is silly. Extend your arguments.

Turns case arguments are the truth. Probability weighing is fake.

Underutilized arguments and strategies are fun - if you can win the presumption debate or the impact turn, go for it.

Hello, I am a parent judge. Please speak slow enough that the average person can hear clearly. If I don't understand something I will not flow.

Couple of things:

- I like off time roadmaps.

- I don't vote on crossfire.

- Please frontline/defend your case.

Speaker Points:

Confident and clear speaking will get you a higher score. Clear enunciation.

Use tones. Do not speak monotonously. When you are saying something important, make it clear that it is important, whether through your words, your voice, or both.

I'm an ex-LD debater, now a college student – that being said, treat me like a lay judge for PF.

For online tournaments, I am flowing, but no spreading, please. We're all at the mercy of internet connections, so going too quickly results in a blur of noise that makes it difficult to listen for judges and opponents alike. Add me to the email chain! jkhosid@uchicago.edu

Important things:

1. Signpost, signpost, signpost. Roadmaps are usually a waste of time, I just need to know where you are and what you're addressing. A well-organized speech is the key to high speaks.
2. Framework debate is big for me, I will evaluate the round based on the framework (i.e. through this lens) provided by the debaters. Weighing-wise, impact comparison is a focus point. 
3. Extend your warrants, not just the author. Don't extend turns without impacts. 
4. Voter summaries are a great idea. Just btw. 
5. Extend your arguments across the flow & link them back to the framework. (i.e. pls be cohesive)

Other things of note:

1. Don't rely on debate jargon in front of me like you would in front of more technical judges – if I don't understand what you mean, this loses you the ability to make coherent arguments.
2. I think theory & kritik arguments in PF are almost entirely frivolous. That said, I will always judge based on how you & your opponent handle the cases presented. 

influential educators: syd huntimer, rose larson, spencer anderson mcelligott, ryan davis, kacee wells, danielle schmitt, ryan cavanaugh, nolan johnson, lily guizat

he/him

I debated in high school LD for four years and college policy for two years. I accomplished very little of note. I now coach LD and speech for Edina High School and policy for the University of Minnesota.

Debate is a communication activity. I flow speeches, not documents (and I usually flow on paper). This means that you should be clear. If I cannot understand every word you are saying, I will clear you twice. If I cannot understand you after that, I will vote against you for clipping. Speed is never a problem for me, clarity often is.

NDT/CEDA: I feel very strongly that the decline in recorded debates since the COVID pandemic started is a huge loss for the community, particularly for high school debaters from smaller or less-resourced programs. From now on, I will be carrying recording equipment at every tournament I judge at. If both teams let me know before the round that they'd like the round recorded and posted on YouTube, I will happily do so.

Another pet peeve: debaters should stop shotgunning permutations or short analytic arguments on counterplans or Ks. This is the most unflowable practice that I usually see -- either give me pen time or break them up with cards.

After a year of judging college policy I have noticed I am more of a big picture judge. That’s not to say that I don’t care about technical concessions — they’re incredibly important — but that I start my decisions with global framing questions. Ticky tacky line by line is less important if you’re not connecting it to the central question(s) of the debate— I don't like to draw lines for you. However, I will follow conceded judge instruction and adopt the decision procedure that the debaters instruct me to.

I hold the line.

Speeches should be well organized. I have ADHD and I struggle the most in rounds where debaters do not line up arguments. This means you should put a premium on numbering arguments, having clear transitions between arguments and answering arguments in the order presented.

I prefer debates where students present well-researched positions that they've clearly put a lot of thought into. I don't like cheap shots. However, technical execution overrides my personal feelings.

I'd rather see debates where students treat each other kindly. I'm not going to enforce standards of politeness or respectability with my ballot, but being needlessly cruel to your opponents is unnecessary and makes the debate worse for everyone.

I will not cast my ballot based on the character of the opposing team or out of round actions. If you think your opponent has done something bad in round, I will of course factor that in to my decision, but I will never use my ballot to hash out interpersonal disputes that I have no first-hand knowledge of.

I am uninterested in hearing “content warning theory” unless it is for content that is objectively disturbing. There is no reason to present a graphic depiction of violence or SA in a debate, even with a content warning. Reading content warning theory on “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” is unnecessary and trivializing.

Specific arguments

Ks: This is where I spend most of my time in researching, coaching and judging. Judge instruction, especially relating to framework, is essential. For both sides--put away the long overviews and blocks, unless they have a purpose in the round.

T-USFG: Winnable on both sides. Intuitively, I think a counter-interp makes more sense, but impact turns are often easier to execute for the aff. Fairness makes more sense to me than clash. A 2NR that doesn't engage somehow with the case in these debates is likely to lose.

KvK: Articulate your vision of competition. Examples, examples, examples.

CPs: Competition arguments > theory, but you do you.

T: I don't have a distaste for T against policy affs. I don't really care about community norms, and I don't see why that would make an aff topical or not.

Extinction does not automatically come first. Non-extinction impacts matter, but most debaters are bad at debating that.

Hi, I'm Parker or Mr. Klyn, whichever you are most comfortable with.

I am the Director of Forensics at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Des Moines, IA).

I coach national circuit PF and hopefully LD soon. I'm on the NSDA Public Forum Topic & Wording Committee.

"I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck," and "Most judges give appalling decisions." <-- Two quotes from a legendary coach that illustrate my views on judging. My promise to you as a judge is always giving you 100% of my attention and rendering decisions that I honestly believe in and can defend/justify.

I judge for three reasons:

1. I love debate and enjoy judging.
2. Judging great debaters allows me to grow as a coach and judge.
3. Fulfilling my team's obligation.

If the round starts in 60 seconds and you don't have time to read the whole paradigm: I am a standard national circuit PF flow/tech judge who can handle speed and is open to any form of argumentation, whether substantive or "progressive." Good luck!

–––––––––––––––––––

Public Forum

Add me to the email chain (klynpar@gmail.com). In national circuit varsity/bid PF rounds, send speech docs with cut cards ahead of (1) case & (2) all speeches where you read new evidence. (i.e. not a link to a google doc, not just the rhetoric, etc.) This is non-negotiable. (1) It makes the debate and by extension the tournament run on time and (2) it allows me to be as non-interventionist as possible.

I’m a tech/blank-slate judge, I flow on my computer using Flower. Judge instruction is key. The best debaters essentially write my RFD for me in final.

The above means that I will vote on anything. However, due to time constraints and neg's ability to go first, I generally believe the format's best debates are substantive rounds over the resolution. With that being said, run whatever arguments (substance, K, theory, Spark, etc.) you would like in front of me if you feel they will earn you the win. Debate is a game.

Be kind and respectful, I will never change a ballot on this but I will lower speaks especially when it comes to experience/age/resource imbalances.

I vote on offense/defense, that includes framework and specific weighing mechanisms.

Speed is fine, go as fast as you want.

I always disclose my decision alongside some feedback. Feel free to ask questions afterwards. Let's leave the round feeling like we had a positive, enjoyable educational experience.

Speaks are based on technical execution, not some arbitrary standard of what makes a "good speaker." My speaks are pretty standard although I find I am particularly generous (29.5+) to great debaters and particularly stingy (27-27.9) with debaters that miss the mark or make major strategic errors. In order to promote good norms, I will bump your speaks by +0.1 each if you (1) send speech docs with cut cards and (2) indicate to me that you open-source disclose.

Long story short, Just win baby~!

–––––––––––––––––––

Lincoln-Douglas

Email: klynpar@gmail.com

I have begun to coach LD. I will wear my debater's Des Moines Hoover Husky Howler Novice LD tournament champion ribbon with pride for all eternity. (:

Overriding judge philosophy is blank slate/no judge intervention. Debate's a game, do what you have to do to win.

Still learning natcirc LD. However, I've watched dozens of those types of rounds on YouTube and am confident in my ability to evaluate debates. You are welcome to run whatever you want, but based on what I've watched, I am most comfortable with: Policy/LARP, Ks (of both the Aff and the debate space), and topicality/non-friv theory i.e. disclosure. Not confident in evaluating performance or academic philosophy, this would probably require lots of warranting, but if that's your lane, don't feel the need to adjust to me.

I will default to voting on offense extended through the round, but judge instruction can convince me to vote on almost anything. Please attempt to write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Ask me questions ahead of time for any clarifications.

–––––––––––––––––––

Congress

If you're in Iowa and you do the literal bare minimum (speak as much as you can, provide sources for your arguments, REFUTE OTHER SPEECHES, ask questions), you're practically guaranteed to finish in the top half of my ballot. Seriously, why are so many of y'all just seemingly along for the ride!

Smaller things: Crystallization speeches are lazy unless it's like the 7th speech of a bill and there has been actual clash the entire way down (make actual arguments instead!), being charismatic/entertaining is a good tiebreaker but doesn't replace a well-argued speech, good POs are hard to beat and bad POs make debate no fun (unless literally nobody else was willing to do it -- then I'll reward you on the ballot), treating bills as having real-life implications around the world >>> LARPing as US legislators

–––––––––––––––––––

Debate thoughts:

(This is a pretty self-indulgent section so only read if you think I provide useful insight into the activity):

You should always presume the other team, the judges, and the audience are acting in good faith. Any accusations or even implications towards someone cheating or otherwise breaking the rules should be "stake-the-round" moments -- that is, you better be willing to take a min speaks L if it's unfounded.

One of the single dumbest things I see in competitive debate is this trend of "I'll give u 0.5 speaks if u reference The Office" or "+1 speaks for bringing me a coffee!" It's pathetically and brazenly anti-educational and borderline exploitative (of children!), not to mention it'd be so stupid for someone to get like a 4-2 screw because another team mentioned a dumb meme in their speech. I presume good intentions from people in this community but I am quite skeptical of those who do this.

Speaking of judges, I have zero patience for people who use their ballot/RFD to bully and demean. Congratulations, you're a college-educated adult and you found flaws in a 14-year-old's argumentation. If I'm on a panel or spectating a round where a judge's RFD is moving into bullying territory, I have no qualms cutting them off and reporting them to tab.

And finally with regards to judging -- I allude to this above, but I see far too many debates, especially here in Iowa, where the extent of judges' RFDs is "I didn't like your case" regardless of the actual content of the round. That makes me sad, as it invalidates dozens of hours of preparation and strategy-building between competitors and their coaches. It breaks my heart when I see a well-prepared team lose because the judge just "didn't buy it." I only vote on what is communicated to me within the debate. I do not care how unlikely it seems or how incoherent the link is.... if it's that obvious, the opposition should point it out, not rely on me to intervene and make that evaluation on my own.

Debate as an activity is incredible. Obviously I'm biased but I genuinely think it's the single best thing high schoolers can do with their time. If you're reading this you're probably a nerd or a competition freak (or both) but you also should be proud that you are involved in this thing we do. It makes kids smarter, more confident, better at speaking, better citizens, more critical of the world and its power structures while also more open to alternative ways of thinking.... and it's exhilarating and fun! If I could just coach debate all day I'd take that job in a heartbeat. I often find myself getting emotional when judging high-level debate rounds because of the talent, passion, prep, and dedication in front of me, and I swell with pride when my debaters develop new skills and deploy them.

Feel like quitting debate because you don't think you're any good? DON'T! My first ever tournament I went 1-4 at the Des Moines Lincoln Railsplitter. Even worse, we started 0-4 and were power-matched against the only other 0-4 team at that point -- we only won because our opponents forgot what side of the topic they had chosen. I promise, it gets better. I have a team that went 1-5 and 0-5 at their first two bid tournaments in '22-23 who just picked up a PF Gold bid at Blake '23. Keep at it and you will blossom.

About me:

Director of Forensics of Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, IA, former coach for Ames (IA)

I debated PF in high school in rural Iowa and had no exposure to the national circuit BUT since then have coached multiple partnerships to TOC and state champions.

My favorite debate event is Public Forum and my favorite speech events are Extemp and Oratory.

Coaching forensics and attending tournaments are among my favorite things in life~ I feel so lucky to be able to do this a couple dozen weekends every year.

Add me to any email chain: vijjikomali@gmail.com

My son wrote the rest of this:

I am a lay judge.

I wont be able to understand your points if you speak too fast, cases with 650-700 words are a good pace.

Speak clearly with good enunciation for me to best understand what you are talking about.

Don't use buzzwords, i wont be able to understand debate jargon.

Sign-post well so I am not lost in your speech

Be specific about what you're talking about, don't just say "look at their first response" or "look the the Smith evidence instead".

The easiest way to judge a round accurately is if you have a clear narrative by the end of the round, don't just dump arguments and expect me to understand which one is better than the other, implicate the clash in the round. And quality>quantity, dont go fast in summary/ff to get coverage, just go slow and choose good arguments to extend

Weighing should happen, no matter what kind of judge, weighing should be understandable to anyone, so at least in FF, make sure that I know who to vote for, what they won in the round, why they win.

About me:

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

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

Round specifics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

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

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

I am lay judge who has recently (since 2021) started judging PF debates.

Speech clarity is very important, use signposting, some/medium speed is okay. Please state your claims clearly, provide evidence and highlight the impact(s). Don't use too much technical stuff - if you do, please explain it in short otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I award speaker points based on how clearly you lay out your case. It helps if you provide a good summary of your case in the final focus.

Lastly please be respectful to your competitors and everyone else in the room.

Public Forum (See below for LD Specifics)

I debated for Mission San Jose High School from 2013-2017 and was relatively active on the Public Forum circuit in my junior and senior years.

I have included my preferences below. If you have questions that are not answered below, ask them before the round begins.

- I evaluate arguments on the flow.

- I am a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. In the absence of an explicit framework, I default to util.

- I do not take notes during crossfire and will only be paying attention selectively. If something important comes up, mention it in your next speech.

- I will typically only vote on arguments if they are extended in both the summary and the final focus.

- No new evidence is permitted in the second summary (it's fine in first summary). This is to encourage front-lining and to discourage reading new offense in second rebuttal. Additionally, new carded analysis in the second summary forces the final focus to make new responses and deviate away from an initial strategy. The only exception I will make is if you need to respond to evidence introduced in the first summary. New analytical responses and criticisms of evidence are fine.

- I try to be visibly/audibly responsive, e.g. I will stop flowing and look up from my computer when I don't understand your argument and I'll probably nod if I like what you're saying. I will also say 'CLEAR' if you are not enunciating or going too fast and 'LOUDER' if you are speaking too quietly.

- I will only ask to see evidence after the round in one of three scenarios. (1) I was told to call for a card in a speech (2) Both teams disagree over what the card says and it is never fully resolved (3) I'm curious and want to steal your evidence.

- I usually won't keep track of your speech and prep time. It is your job to keep your opponents accountable. If there is any particular reason you cannot keep time, please let me know and I will try to accommodate.

- I will evaluate theory and Kritiks, as long as they are well warranted.

- I evaluate the debate on an offense/defense paradigm. This does not mean you can wave away your opponent's defensive responses by saying "a risk of offense always outweighs defense," because terminal and mitigatory defense are not the same thing. Terminal defense points out flaws in the logic of an argument while mitigatory defense accepts an argument as a logical possibility and attacks its probability or magnitude. I personally dislike 'risk of offense' type arguments because I think they encourage lazy debating, but I will happily vote on them if they are well executed. You must answer responses that indict the validity of your link chain if you want to access offense from an argument.

- I reserve the right to drop you for offensive/insensitive language, depending on its severity. Some things are more important than winning a debate round.

- If you plan to discuss sensitive issues such as suicides, depression, sexual assault, etc., please issue trigger warnings at the top of your case.

- Please be nice.

P.S. It's true, I stole this from Max (my better half)

LD Stuff:

- I have not watched circuit LD in years, so please don't go faster than ~225 wpm while speaking extemporaneously. If you are reading off of a speech doc, I really don't care.

- I love a good K debate, but many K debates tend to not be good ones. If you cannot conversationally explain your K to someone you know outside of debate, then you probably don't understand it and aren't using it in a compelling way in the round.

- That being said, I am still a tabula rasa judge; I will vote on almost any argument that is topical, properly warranted and impacted. If an argument makes no sense to me, it's usually your fault and not mine. Don't shy away from running anything in front of me, but if you go for it, it must be clearly explained and implicated in your last rebuttal.

If you have concerns, you can reach me at keshavkundassery99@gmail.com

Hello! I am a lay judge. While I don't have any debate experience, I am not a stranger to debate. I have been in legal practice for over 20 years and currently a patent examiner. I am familiar with looking at ideas, reviewing and examining evidences, and considering arguments before drawing conclusions.

Please add me yanlilylan@gmail.com to the email chain. Please include at least the cases and call the email chain like "TOC Round 1 - Team AB vs. Team CD". I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.

As a judge, I prefer for the debaters to warrant out all their arguments, do not make an assertion and not give the reasoning. Make sure to weigh, if you don't I might make a decision you aren't happy about.

You can run anything, so long as you are clear, weigh it, and tell me why it’s the best way to adjudicate the round. I prefer evidence over just logical reasoning but logic is a very good tool to supplement evidence or for other responses. Please make sure you signpost.

In terms of speed, talk normal speed. I only flow what I can understand. If I can't grasp the arguments due to speed, it is your loss. 

At the end of the day, debate should be fun and debaters should enjoy the activity. Heated arguments are expected, but rudeness is not good.

TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.

Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak or shake my hand. I will evaluate the flow with very few caveats. Pronouns: he/him/his.

I did policy in high school and NPDA at the University of Oregon. My partner, Gabe, and I won the NPTE in 2022.

Preferences that matter for my decision

1. Debate is a game
2. Hard debate is good debate
3. Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will
4. You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi
5. Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal
6. Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith
7. I default to magnitude first sans weighing
8. Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp
9. I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori
10. Topicality violations are not derived from solvency
11. Collapsing is always better than not collapsing
12. For the love of god extend the aff
13. For the love of god answer the aff

Preferences that matter but less for my decision

1. Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance
2. Condo is good, PICs are justifiable if there are multiple topical affs, CP theory is far from a losing strat
3. Perms are defense, collapsing to defense is suboptimal
4. Going for RVIs is usually cowardice, cowardice is suboptimal
5. Links of omission are weak
6. Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious
7. Decolonization is not a metaphor
8. Kritiks are a byproduct of good, nuanced, and educated debate; the existence of ks is good for the activity
9. I have yet to hear a compelling flow-based 'spreading bad' argument
10. Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks
11. Science is a very useful ideology
12. Lit based alts are better than alts you made up

HS Parli specific:

Spread if you can, don't if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.

Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution, it is probably germane.

CARD specific:

CARD is a format built around accessibility and subject matter education. I will base my RFD on who wins the flow and all preferences above apply, but it is my job to ensure that cordiality, access, and educational value are maintained. In practice, this means I will be extra cognizant of proven abuse/reasonability, power tagging, overt rudeness in cross-x, and smart use of the evidence packet. It’s still debate – don’t pull punches, but at least make sure everyone in the room is having a good time.

Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at skydivingsimians@gmail.com

I am a junior at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, majoring in Statistics and Asian studies. I have four years of Public Forum debate experience and participated in major university tournaments every single year in high school. I have judged over 13 tournaments in the past two years. All in all, I am a flow judge, and speed is okay with me. Some suggestions are listed below:

1. Do not bring up new points in the final focus... I will not give you any credit as it will not appear on my flow sheet.

2. Please please please weigh your impact!!!!!!!

3. If your opponent drops a point/impact/link that you think is important, you better call it out.

4. Make sure to extend your argument throughout the debate to get full credit.

5. If I think a card is too good to be true, I might ask for it at the end of the debate.

6. I am okay with speed, BUT please make your words clear. Also, DON'T SPREAD!

7. Please do not interrupt your opponents during cross-fire...give him/her a chance to finish the response before inserting another question or response.

8. Please reconstruct your argument in the rebuttal.

9. I wouldn't flow crossfire. Therefore, if anything happens in the crossfire that you think is important, such as your opponent making a concession, you need to bring it up in your next immediate speech.

10. If you want me to vote for you, you need to have clear voters and link stories!

11. You have to reconstruct in rebuttal to extend your own argument. Or else I consider that to be dropping your argument.

At the end of the debate, there are three things that I will for sure do: disclosure, round analysis, and personal feedback. Please give me a few minutes at the end of the debate to allow me to choose the winning side. During these two minutes, I will also call for cards if the round is too close; just want to be careful :)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I am a traditional/lay judge - most of this paradigm can be derived from that statement. I will most likely not understand progressive debate, and dislike debate jargon. When forced to judge progressive debate, I will try my best.

Dos:

• Have depth in understanding of the topic.
• Use relevant evidence. Don’t just read a random card as a warrant that, in fact, does not support your tag. Also, please point out your opponent’s misuse of evidence when it occurs.
• Maintain the ability to seek common ground even in a debate situation - your opponent is not necessarily your enemy. Be kind, no ad hominem. I will most likely not flow off the document, so please be coherent in your actual words.
• Good presentation is still quite important to me. I will try to minimize this bias, but in the face of a close round, the better speaker will win.
• Have good, logical warrants. Evidence itself is not a warrant - and evidence is not necessarily concrete. Clear link chains are a must. Explain links, warrants, and impacts very thoroughly.

Don’ts:

• Make bold statements without adequate support. I will try to minimize judge intervention on arguments, but when weighing similar arguments I will go for the one that makes more logical sense. I still appreciate creativity, but they must pass the common sense test first.
• Spread. I can only flow what I can hear. Check speed/clarity with me before you start speaking if necessary.
• Link cause and effect without adequate intermediate transitions. I am not able to "jump", without your adequate help, to the conclusion that your opponent's position will lead to climate change, nuclear war, civil war, etc. I will be skeptical about these kinds of doomsday arguments in general, so if you must make them, you will have an uphill battle.

Misc:

• Truth > Tech
• Argument Quality > Quantity
• Make it easy for me to decide the winner of the round - judge instruction is a must. Signpost and present the voters of the round as clearly as possible.

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

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

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

Being respectful and persuasive is the best way to win. 

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

Have fun!

Hello! My fondest memories of high school are from high school debate (PF and Congress) tournaments! I also have memories of terrible judges - I will do my best to not fall into the latter category for you.

- The faster you talk does not = the better your argument.

- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but it really should be.

- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.

- Don't ask for more evidence than you need and use this as more prep time.

- You do not need to give an off time road map, in fact, perhaps do not.

- Winning in cross does not = the more speaking time you have. Ask and answer quickly, concisely and politely.

Hello Debaters,

I'm a parent judge who observed over 48 hours of PF training when I administrated those training courses. I judged CNDF, BP, and PF tournaments at the local, national, and international levels. I started judging at the CNDF tournaments four years ago, and have served as a volunteer judge at PF tournaments for two debate seasons.

No spreading. Clarity and logical analysis work better for me. Since the debate is an exercise for critical thinking, I would be happy to learn from you what the fundamental issues/questions should be solved in this motion/resolution. 

Name: Elena MacGurn

School Affiliation:

Ravenwood High School

Number of Years Judging Public Forum:

Second year

What is your current occupation?

Group Vice President at a Digital Marketing Agency

Please share your debate opinions or beliefs:

As a lay judge, I value the following delivery aspects of a debate round:

· Clearly communicated impact

· Respectful delivery of all arguments and rebuttal responses

· Delivery speed is successful if the message is communicated with no negative effect on comprehension, and impact-weighted emphasis is achieved

· Clean and logical organization of arguments tied directly to the premise

background: sophomore in college, debated for edina hs in minnesota on local + nat circuits, worked for public forum academy (summer 2021), currently coaching varsity pf at palo alto high school

tldr: normal tech judge. collapse + weigh + be a good person and you'll be fine. debate is needlessly stressful - have some fun in my round

general

arjun25@stanford.edu - put me on the email chain

if you need any accommodations, i'm happy to help out. feel free to message me on facebook or email me

run what you want. i like hearing creative arguments. don't be problematic

read content warnings for triggering arguments, preferably via an anonymous form

easiest ways to lose speaks: misconstruing evidence, being rude, hacking prep egregiously, delaying the round for no reason (ex: taking forever to find a card)

evidence

i paraphrased in hs and if done well i support the practice

if you're paraphrasing, you need to have the card ready at moment's notice for me or your opponents to call

if i call a card and you're paraphrasing, give me both a) the paraphrase of what you read from ur rebuttal doc and b) the cut card

expect bad speaks if you have bad evidence

i have dropped people on egregious evidence before

weighing

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

metaweighing is only rarely necessary, but in rounds with solid weighing and clash it can be important. most of the time the weighing debate can be won without having to metaweigh

progressive arguments

don't exclude your opponent

if you feel excluded by the argument, try to articulate how you've been excluded in the round

if you run progressive arguments commonly seen in PF pre-pandemic, i'll know it pretty well. if not, still read the argument, but don't expect me to know the lit base so spend a lot of time on warranting. please don't spread if you're running these arguments so that i can catch everything

i'm not an expert on evaluating Ks but im all ears if u wanna go for it

if you want to read theory/T about something that transpired in the round but don't know the formal format, still run it even if it's in paragraph form. try to have the basic idea of a shell, so: a) interpretation (your interpretation of debate), b) violation (what your opponents did to violate that interpretation of debate), c) standards (why your interpretation is a good model for debate), and d) voters (impacts to fairness/education and an implication like drop the debater or drop the argument).

teams often run theory in front of me, but i honestly am not a fan of it at all. i'll evaluate it, but i'd much, much rather see a high quality content debate! Ks are more interesting than theory to me but i'm not as good at evaluating them

strong bias against friv theory and tricks. it's terrible for debate and it's gna be hard to convince me otherwise

if there is no offense, i will presume to vote for whoever is the 1st speaking team. this is because of the structural disadvantage that 1st speaking teams experience in pf

if you have questions, feel free to ask before round.

other paradigm references: i was coached by Mark Allseits in high school if you wanna see what my background is. also, everything in this paradigm also applies to me as well (debate partner from hs)

I debated for four years in high school, three of which were in PF. I had around five bids to the TOC and I broke first at NSDA Nationals. I also champed a few small to mid-sized tournaments in HS. I'm now a sophomore and I debate BP at Hart House at the University of Toronto and I coach PF (and BP occasionally). Add me to the email chain jmai7335@gmail.com.

General:

Tech > truth.

Be nice.

Nothing __ist or ___phobic.

If there is no offense generated by either side by the end of the round, I default the team that wins the weighing.

I'm fairly generous with speaks.

The average speed of speeches has gone up, but my tolerance for speed has not. In fact, it's probably gone down since I did PF. I can tolerate around 200 WPM but anything above that, please send a speech doc.

In-Round:

Front Half:

I don't like this trend where teams blip twelve random arguments in constructive that are all underdeveloped and frankly kinda dumb, I'll still vote on these arguments if they're won, but I'd prefer a nuanced and clear debate.

Not a huge fan of disads/advantages.

Warrants are so cool and they make me very happy.

Don't disad-dump in second rebuttal or else I will be very sad.

Anything not responded to by second rebuttal is conceded.

Back Half:

Signposting is so cool and it makes me very happy.

Weighing is so cool and it makes me very happy (this includes weighing turns).

Meta-weighing is so cool and it makes me very happy.

Defense is sticky.

Don't go for too much.

Progressive Debate:

I'm not super familiar with K's, but I'm more comfortable with theory. Make of that what you will.

For theory, I default to competing interps and no RVIs.

I will vote on any shell if it is won, but my threshold decreases the more frivolous the shell.

If you have any questions at the end of the round, don't hesitate to ask.

Also follow me on IG @joseph.maii for a +0.5 speaks boost :)

(My partner from HS also stole this paradigm from me so if you ever get Rina Song as a judge, please give her a bad time).

Parent judge

I appreciate a logical argument that weighs both sides. I do research the topics a little, so please do not misconstrue evidence. You should be able to reasonably explain your argument, stating cards is not enough. Please do not get too aggressive, I will dock points if the debate is not respectful.

Each team will be in charge of timing the round. I will not time.

I will flow; make sure you are providing links/warrants/impacts. If I'm not making eye contact it's because I'm making sure the flow enables me to be unbiased in my decision.

Speaker points will not only be based on how well you argue your case, but how you conduct yourself in terms of professionalism and the courtesy you show to your opponents.

less is more: spreading makes you look desperate. Hammer your key points and extend. I'm not a fan of the direct pleas or demands to the judge: ie "judge you must vote for us because of..."

I will always give feedback in my RFD so there is a clear understanding of the decision.

most of all: have fun! I admire all of you so much for your commitment to an extremely advanced and demanding extracurricular.

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

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

Parent judge based in Tennessee.

I cannot handle very fast talking, so please speak slowly and clearly.

I prefer well thought out arguments over just quick, short little responses.

Good luck.

Great Communicator Series: Please refer to just the Main PF Paradigm and the GCS Rules.

Background:I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
• Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but also know if you aren't clear, it will be harder for me to flow.
• Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
• Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
• I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).
• I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

• Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
• Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. *** Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
• ***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

cosby '21 fsu '24

put me on the email chain jackmerkel57@gmail.com

3 years pf (Qualled to TOC, States, Broke at many Nat Circuit Tourneys), 2 year NFA-LD (Qualled to NFA Nats 2x - Octos 2024)

important stuff

let me know if you want to see my flow of your round after it's over - i'm uncomfortable sending flows to debaters that weren't in the round though because i think that unfairly helps debaters w more clout

feel free to postround me respectfully, i recognize that i'm capable of making wrong decisions or understanding arguments incorrectly - i'm here to learn and improve just as much as both teams are

i will drop you for misgendering someone, apologies don't solve and i'm not at all open to hearing arguments that claim otherwise.

please read an opt-in cw for any argument that may contain sensitive content, if you don't and a team reads cw theory I honestly don't see myself ever not voting for it. when in doubt err on the side of reading one.

NFA-LD

Case-Yes topical plan affs. I am probably the best at judging this style, with that being said non-t/k affs are fine, just a higher threshold to win my ballot.

T-Came from PF so never debated T before NFA, as a result not as good of a T judge compared to more established LD/Policy judges. Prob lean aff in most cases on T but will obv vote on it if the neg provides good warranting and definitions as to why its not T. Overall tho found T pretty boring and probably went for it less than 10% of the time so take that as you will.

DA-Yes please, I love a good disad that is creative in its link from the aff and has good weighing against the aff scenarios. Probably the most fun kind of debate to judge.

CP-Never really read or went for these, that being said I love a good/strategic cp that can solve the aff and has unique net benefits. Just explain how the cp solves the aff and why its competitive.

K-Read a lot more of these my last year debating, mainly read security but have experience running Cap and Psycho (Lacan/Matheson). I struggle a bit on higher phil like Baudy but I can prob still evaluate it. In addition performance/identity Ks are fine, obv dont have much experience running these but can still evaluate them. Idc if your alt isn't a material action, just describe what the alt world looks like whether its a mindset shift, rejection ect. On framing prove why your rotb matters and why I shouldn't weigh the aff, interact with your opponents fairness/education/predictability claims and prove why I should prefer your interpretations, weigh pre vs post fiat implications ect. "Perm do both" isn't a response, explain why the aff and alt are not mutually exclusive and explain how the aff and alt can function together and why that solves better.

Theory-I honestly like theory, obv as stated above didn't come from a LD/Policy background so don't have as much experience debating/evaluating procedural theory but have debated theory enough that its still fine to run. I love disclosure theory and just think its prob a true argument on both aff and neg so feel free to run this.

Misc- Speed is fine, I personally never really spread but I can evaluate it. Speaks are stupid and I think judging speaking ability is the most pointless thing in the activity, read 30 speaks theory and Ill give both debaters highest speaks allowed, regardless you will both prob get high speaks.

PF Stuff

how do i decide who i vote for?

first - i go through every piece of offense in each final focus and determine if every important piece of the argument is extended (all too many rounds i vote based off a team failing to extend a link, warrant, or impact)

next - i look at the defense on each of these - if no weighing is done, i default to whichever argument is the path of least resistance - if both teams have no offense left, i presume the first speaking team - this is also when i call any cards i'm told to or that i think are bad

then - assuming there is weighing, i vote based on whichever weighing mechanism is best justified - if none are justified, i default magnitude first, probability second, and timeframe third - i think lots of other mechanisms used in pf fall into one of these (for example, severity is a type of magnitude, strength of link is probability) i also look to framing at this step if there is any and apply that as well. also on weighing, the most convincing and best weighing is link-ins and prereq weighing, this prob comes before any other generic mechanisms

evidence

paraphrasing is fine, just please have a cut card for whatever ur paraphrasing. if someone calls for ev and u send an 80 page pdf and tell me to control f something and read around it im not evaluating your ev. its really not that hard to just copy and paste that paragraph and highlight what your reading.

prog stuff

see NFA-LD section, tldr open to most prog stuff except trix which im just never voting for. if you have more specific questions just ask before the round

most importantly i want to make debate an inclusive space where everyone can have a fun and educational time so please let me know if there is anything i can do to make the space more accessible

Experience

Umich'25 :D

PF & a fair amount of policy -- currently coach a few circuit PF teams, many of whom have done well nationally.

Note: guys I was telling everyone for, like, MONTHS that they were gonna learn how to debate fwk and ontology vs. planless affs for the PF TOC and nobody believed me!!!!! But I was right!!!!!

Email chain: MCDPrepDocs@gmail.com & Meskouri@umich.edu

General/TLDR

Top: fairly experienced tech -- have evaluated basically everything. Adam, not "judge."

Yes K (both pre & post), yes theory, no excessive speed (usually good for like ~250 wpm with docs I think but anything further and I'll be cooked). Swearing is fine, just don't be egregious w/it.

PF judging is in a rough spot right now -- I frequently see bad judges get away with hilariously terrible decisions, even in elims and bid rounds (many of my 2-1s are blatant parent screws lol). I will do everything in my power to ensure that this does not happen to you.

I thus encourage debaters to use my rounds to do/practice things that they can't do in front of other judges -- this means you should consider me open to any style of debate including substance, debates about debate, debates about debating about debate, etc. Do whatever you want, just be clear -- be flayish in presentation (err on the side of urgent > speedy) and I'll 100% catch everything. To clarify, this means that I am willing to evaluate any and all types of arguments (dedev, spark, prefiat/postfiat K, theory etc etc) so long as you aren't spreading (>250 wpm) through them. My camera will usually be off as it helps me flow better.

This paradigm is purposefully blippy as I recognize that, more often than not, paradigms aren't read in full prior to round. If you have any burning questions, ask!

Make a Garfield or Babytron reference for +0.5 speaks!

Specs

• Email me the 1AC and 1NC (non-negotiable) & preferably rebuttal docs with all ev and (only if you can) analytics-- I will cap speaks if constructive docs are not sent and will raise speaks if rebuttal docs are. To be clear, constructive docs are non-negotiable.

• I really like good rounds and really hate bad rounds. Generally, “good” teams will be diligent about the LBL, give good OVs, signpost extremely well, and extend the right pieces of big picture offense/defense -- write my ballot for me. I tend to reward debaters for tricky responses, but that is not to say that you should be blipping out 15 incoherent analytics per minute. Remember to extend your warrants as a way of resolving clash!

• K is chill, but only if you’re good at it – I haven’t been convinced that PFers can debate K like they can theory or substance quite yet. I can follow most reps Ks and many prefiat/performance ones. Similarly, I feel comfortable evaluating the responses to Ks (T-FW, TVA, SSD, ballot pik, perm etc). I can't follow phil.

• DISCLAIMER: apparently I borderline hack for perfcons. I think they usually outweigh the ivi/shell/K and it is tough to convince me otherwise unless you're reading unfairness good.

• Theory is cool! I like to think I’m a decent judge for it who has seen or evaluated most shells. Feel free to pref me if you read stuff like disclo, paraphrasing, speed, or any wacky non-friv (tbh, you can read friv, j be willing to commit to it). Don't spread through your shell. Going for 1-2 standards is usually better than blipping out 5 in final. The only part of theory that bores me is the bottom half (CI, RVI, etc). Obv, disclo is good and para is bad. But, I've voted for disclo bad and para good. Writing "contact info is term defense" on your wiki is silly and almost always unpersuasive and wrong.

• T is a voter. Debated equally vs. a Kaff, it'll probably win. I'm pretty receptive to TVA and SSD on a truth level -- not sure how I feel about the ballot PIK. My views on debating vs. alts are the same as my views on debating vs. impacts: both of them deserve more analysis and defense/offense. Procedural fairness probably o/w most impacts absent a great explanation of how the performance does something tangible and why that round specifically is k2 something important. I'll vote on fairness impact turns.

• Egregious speed is bad -- assume I can follow 65-70% of your top pace. The back half should be slower than the front half. Not sure how I feel about new ev in second sum.

• Cheating is bad. I will do my best to ensure that the 2FF doesn't get away with murder. Have cut cards ready to send ASAP -- I won't accept hyperlinks. You have to frontline in 2nd rebuttal. DAs in rebuttal are obviously fine. (and probably underutilized if you can explain why the DA o/w their link).

• A lot of "turns" in PF are just DAs. If your turn isn't responsive to the actual link and instead says that the aff/neg does something tangential which makes their impact worse, you need to spend way more time weighing the turn against their link. If the turn IS responsive, you need to do a little less of that.

• Defense is kinda sticky because the time constraints of PF make extending everything hard, BUT that does not mean you don’t have to say “extend the mining NL” for me to flow it.

• A quick tip: if you're spending 30s/speech on it while they're spending 2m/speech, they're probably winning it.

• Debate in a way that allows fun for everyone.
  
  

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

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

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

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

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

A little bit about me: I competed in speech and debate for three years during high school, specifically in PF, Congress, limited prep, and interp events. I even dabbled a little in LD and World Schools. Now, I stay involved with the speech and debate community by coaching PF at Phoenix Country Day School in AZ.

As far as paradigms go, I'm open to pretty much any argument you can warrant properly and impact out. I will vote off the flow, but that means your arguments need to be made clear to me. I can keep up with speed, but if I put my pen down, you've lost me. At the end of the round, I am looking for offense, which includes both the impact and the link into that impact, that has been extended cleanly through the debate. Then, it comes down to the weighing that you have done for me on that offense. Don't make me do that work for you because it probably won't turn out the way you want it to!

General things to note:

• Please stand for your speeches unless there is a legitimate reason you are unable to. It helps your public speaking, your persuasiveness, your confidence, you name it.
• For the love of all things holy, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST!!!! I want clear taglines and numbered responses. The more organized you are in your responses, the more likely I will follow every piece of your argument, meaning the more likely I am to vote for you.
• I like off-time roadmaps. That means something short like, "I'm going aff then neg," or, "The order will be overview, their case, our case." It shouldn't be anything more than telling me where I will be flowing.
• I will not call for a card unless you specifically ask me to during one of your speeches.
• If something important happens during CX, bring it up during a speech.
• Don't be rude to your opponents. I love a little sass and sarcasm because debate definitely calls for that sometimes, but don't blatantly disrespect one another.

Technical things to note:

• Second rebuttal should frontline (quickly) anything that will be extended in summary.
• Extend important defense. Defense is sticky, but it strengthens your position if you hang onto important defense throughout the round.
• Counterplans: These don't belong in PF. They are a clear violation of rules. Counter advocacies with the necessary probability weighing are fine, but no plan text or specific implementation plan.
• Kritiks: I find Ks really interesting, and I am all for their entrance into PF when you have a tech judge/panel. I want you to read your K to me as if I have not read the literature surrounding the issue though. Just because you say a buzz word, does not mean I understand the argument. Make sure it is well formulated if you want my ballot.
• Theory: If there is a clear violation of PF rules, don't run a shell. Just tell me about the violation during a speech, and that will suffice. If there is a violation of norms that you feel is genuinely worthy of bringing up (i.e. no frivolous theory), I am willing to hear it out. That being said, I am not super well-versed in theory debate, so you just need to make sure you explain to me what the impact of your argument is on the round and why I should care about it. In all honesty, if a team runs theory, you are probably more likely to get my ballot without running a counterinterp and just responding to it the way you would any other argument. All the jargon starts to get lost on me.

I started this technical section based on questions I am frequently asked in round. It is nowhere near exhaustive, so if you have any additional questions or concerns, feel free to ask me when both teams are present before the round!

Also, please include me in the email chain: mittelstedt.taylor@gmail.com

PF

gautammdas9@gmail.com

I coach withDebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Don't spread.

I want to see arguments with a clear link chain. I don't want to see a nuke war impact with barely any explanation on how it materializes.

Make sure extensions are not blippy and that warrants as well as impacts are extended through every speech.

Make sure to weigh / meta-weigh throughout the round.

Please give off-time road maps and signpost.

I give high speaks but will dock you heavily if you are rude to your opponents.

I do not flow crossfire, make sure to bring up concessions in later speeches.

Won't evaluate Ks or Tricks. Theory is ok.

Sexism/homophobia/discrimination of any form will result in an instant drop.

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

Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did primarily PF for 4 years and now coach a bit. I studied political science and international relations and now work in state politics. I'm a very average flow judge.

add me to the email chain and label the round morgandylan183@gmail.com

Flip, pre-flow, and get ready as fast as possible, don't wait for me to get to there.

PLEASE do not go more than 5 seconds over time or prep steal, call your opponents out if they do this

Don't shake my hand

I evaluate the round: first, by looking to framework, then, if there is none, weighing to see where to vote. If neither occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the cleanest link into their impact. I default to probability, then scope. I’m open to why I shouldn’t do any of this.

Speed: I do not want to have to follow along in a doc, be understandable. I flow on paper, I can keep up pretty well. If you are going really fast, look to see if I am writing, and adjust if I'm not

Evidence: I expect all evidence to be in cut card format and ready to see when asked in a few minutes at most. If it is misrepresented I'm docking speaks, but it must be called out in a speech for me to strike it from the flow. Non-highlighted cards are a BIG no.

You can paraphrase if you have cut cards but properly explain each argument, I will not get blippy args on my flow and I shouldn't have to.

General Preferences of Arguments

quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense)

Tell me why I should prefer your analysis/warrant/evidence, etc. Resolve the clash!!

Frontline at least turns in 2nd rebuttal, anything in final focus needs to be in summary, besides more comparative weighing

I love tons of warranting, smart analytics, good knowledge of your evidence and real-world stuff, and making up sound arguments on the fly that you can defend well.

Progressive Arguments

I'll listen to and vote off anything BUT I strongly prefer substance debates and I don't care. BUT If there's legitimate abuse I kind of understand how to evaluate theory. I'm not that familiar with K's or any other progressive args. I do know I strongly prefer topical K's.

With progressive debates, I am a lay judge. Slow down and explain everything more. I require sending speech docs for these.

Speaks: I range from 27.5-29.5, nothing crazy. More commonly 28-29, just do what I talked about above and you'll be fine. I will doc speaks if you do not do things I specifically ask, i.e. slowing down during progressive args.

I love being asked questions and helping you learn!!

es.motolinia@gmail.com and please add blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain as well (this is just how Blake keeps track of our chains because otherwise they get lost).

Just send speech docs from case through rebuttal. We don't need to wait for it to come through but it speeds up ev exchange. If you are in a varsity division and don't have a speech doc, pls do better.

TL;DR clean extensions, weighed impacts, and warrant comparison are the easiest way to win my ballot.

I debated for 2 years in the UDL at Clara Barton and 4 years in PF at Blake (both in MN). Please don't mistake me for a policy judge, I was only a novice and didn't do any progressive argumentation. I have been judging for 5 years.

My judging style is tech but persuasion is still important. I prefer a team that goes deeper on key issues (in the 2nd half of the debate) rather than going for all offense on the flow. There can/ should be a lot on the flow in the 1st half of the debate but not narrowing it down in summ and FF is extremely unstrategic and trades off with time to weigh your arguments and compare warrants.

Use evidence, quote evidence, and we won't have a problem. Don't paraphrase and don't bracket. Bad evidence ethics increases the probability that I will intervene against you, especially in messy debates. I'll start your prep if you take longer than 2 minutes to find and send a card.

Responding to defense on what you're going for and turns is required in the 2nd rebuttal. Obviously respond to all offense in second rebuttal, new responses to offense in second summary will not carry any weight on my ballot. I am very reluctant to accept a lot of new evidence in the 2nd summary because it pushes the debate back too much. (Note: I still accept a warrant clarification or deepening of a warrant/ analysis because that is separate from brand new evidence.)

Defense needs to be in first summary. With 3 minutes, summaries don't have an excuse anymore to be mediocre. Bottom Line: If it is not in summary then it cannot be in final focus. If it is not in final focus then I will not vote on it.

In order to win, you gotta weigh. The earlier you start the weighing, the better. I don't like new mechanisms in 2nd FF (1st FF is still a bit sketch. I am fine with timeframe, magnitude, probability new in the 1st FF but prerequ should probably come sooner). The 2nd speaking summary has a big advantage so I don't accept that there is no time to weigh. It is fine if the summary speaker introduces quick weighing and the final focus elaborates on it in final focus (especially for 1st speaking team). If both teams are weighing, tell me which is the preferable weighing mechanism. Same for framework. Competing frameworks with no warrant for why to prefer either one becomes useless and I will pick the framework that is either cleanly extended or that I like better.

I vote on warrants and CLEAN extensions. A proper extension in the 2nd half of the round is the card name, the claim+ warrant of the card and the implication of the card. Anything short of this is a blippy extension, meaning I give it less weight during my evaluation of the flow. Name of the card is the least important part of the extension for me so don't get too caught up on that, it will just help me find the card on the flow.

I vote on the path of least resistance, if possible. That means that I am more inclined to vote on a dropped turn than messy case offense. But turns need to be implicated, I won't vote on a turn with no impact. Even if your opponent drops something, you still have to do a full extension (it can be quicker still but I don't accept blippy extensions).

You can speak fast, but I would like a warning. Also, the faster you speak, the less I will get on the flow. Just because I am a tech judge, does not mean I am able to type at godly speeds. Don't sacrifice persuasion, clarity, or argumentation for speed otherwise it will be counterproductive for the debate and (possibly) your speaker points. Sending a speech doc (before or after the speech) does not mean that you can be incomprehensible. I still need to be able to understand you verbally, I will not follow the speech doc during your speech.

I am still learning when it comes to judging/ evaluating theory and Ks. I am more familiar with ROB but still need a slower debate with clear warranting. I am more familiar with Ks than theory but never debated either so the concepts are taking me longer to internalize. You can run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I understand a lot of basic ideas when it comes to theory argumentation but your warranting and extensions will have to be even more explicit for me to keep up. I am in favor of paraphrasing bad and disclosure good theory. I don't have many opinions on RVIs or CI vs reasonability so you should clearly extend warrants for those args.

IVIs are silly and avoid clash. If there is abuse, read theory. If there is a rule violation, stop the round.

Similarly, any sort of strategy that avoids clash is a non starter for me and I will give it less weight on my flow. An example of this is reading one random card in your contention that doesn't connect to anything, then it becomes an argument of its own in the back-half with 3 pieces of weighing.

Also, be nice to each other (but a little sass never hurt anyone). Still, be cognizant of how much leeway you have with sass based on power dynamics and the trajectory of the round/ tone of the room. Sass does not mean bullying.

Take flex prep to ask questions or do it during cross. Essentially, a timer must be running if someone is talking (this excludes quick and efficient ev exchange). You don't get to ask free questions because the other team was too fast or unclear.

If I pipe up to correct behavior during a round, you have annoyed me and are jeopardizing your speaker points. I have a poker face when I observe rounds but am less concerned about that when judging so you can probably read me if I am judging your round.

Sometimes messy rounds will come down to nitpicky things so here are some clarifications:

Warranted Cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics

Qualified source and author > qualified source only> qualified author only > no qualified author or source

Link +impact extension > Link with no impact > impact with no link

Comparative weighing > weighing that is only about your impact > weighing that is about opponents impact only

I only have this list because some rounds have come down to each team doing one of these things so this list explains where/ how I intervene when I need to resolve a clash of arguments that were not resolved in the debate.

If the tournament and schedule allows, I like to disclose and have a discussion about the round after I submit my ballot. Ask me any questions before or after the round.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Luck,

Narendra

Hello everyone! I am a university student studying Criminology at Simon Fraser University.

I am currently a PF coach, but my main focus of teaching is younger students in PRO-CON debate.

Tips on receiving higher points and winning the round:

1. I personally like off-time road map for easier flow.

2. Please have your camera on AND time yourself. It is important for you to get in the habit of timing yourself and being able to adjust to the timer.

3. I am HEAVY on frontlining (reconstruction) during second rebuttal AND summary. If I don't hear a frontlining in the second rebuttal, I will be disappointed.

4. I like clear weighing mechanism and USE the weighing mechanism terms in your speech. (ex. we outweigh on ____).

5. If your case is a sole contention, make sure to emphasize the subtopics AND impact and terminal impact.

6. Make sure your contention title is related to your argument and what you are talking about.

7. I highly favour quantifiable evidence over ANYTHING ELSE. So, use numbers!

Not Do's :

Any type of racism, sexism, discrimination, rude comments and negative behaviour will give you very low speaker points. So please be polite to one another :)

Do not talk over people OR cut people off during crossfire. I care a lot about mannerism and etiquette during the rounds. It is important to get your idea addressed, but please let others talk.

Lastly, Have Fun:)

Add me to the chain - Aidin123@berkeley.edu

ASU LD: Do what you do best. Though within progressive-based arguments, I have a better understanding of some arguments over others; below is a quick look for prefs:

1 - Policy/Traditional

2 - Theory, Common K's (Cap, Set-col, etc..)

3 - Phil, Whacky K's (Need more explanation for me to evaluate fairly)

5/Strike - Non-T K Aff's, Tricks, Friv Theory (I do not have the background that I think I need to have to evaluate all arguments fairly and to the quality that you deserve, and friv theory is just an incredibly annoying nuisance)

- Scroll to the bottom for some additional specifics about things

- I haven't judged fast debate in like a year so please please start slow and build into it I need to adjust back.

LD at the bottom:

Just call me Aidin

UC Berkeley Chemistry 23' GO BEARS! BOO PINE TREES!

LD Coach Park City (2020 - Present)

TLDR;

I'm a very expressive person if my face says I hate it. It means I hate it. If I nod or smile, I like what you're saying. Follow the faces

I hate extinction level impacts! I think they create lazy debating where there is a convoluted link chain that will never remotely happen, BUT UTIL!!! So you can run extinction, but to your opponents say MAD.

Impact turns anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story

I will say clear three times before I stop flowing altogether. Whatever is not on the flow is not going to be evaluated. PLEASE SIGNPOST!

Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh a little more, and then after weighing, weigh again for good measure

Write the ballot for me in the last speech; the easier it is for me to vote for, the more likely you are to win

Utah Circuit: I debated a lot on the local circuit and now judge a lot. Have impacts and weigh.

- One rule: An extension is not an extension without an explanation and warranting behind it. I will not flow "Extend Contention 3," and that's it.

PF:

Follow my dearest friend Gavin Serr's paradigms for a more comprehensive look at how I would judge PF.

BIGGEST THINGS

- Don't steal prep - It's not hard to start and stop a timer.

- I default Neg. If there is no offense from either side, I'll stick with the status quo

- It's not an argument without a warrant

- A dropped argument is true, but that doesn't mean it matters. I need reasons why the extension matters. I'm not voting on something that I don't know the implications of it.

- Reading a card is part of the prep, without a doubt.

- If you want me to read a card indite, it's not my job as a judge to win you the round.

- If you will talk about marginalized people, framing and overviews are your friends.

- Please have link extensions in both the summary and FF

- Weighing requires a comparison and why the way you compare is better. Which is better, magnitude or timeframe? IDK, you tell me.

LD:

LARP

Solvency

DAs need to have solid internal links

Offense on the DA needs to be responded to even if kicked

Perms need to be contextualized

K's

A flushed-out link story is fabulous; do this every time you run a K.

line by line analysis is of the utmost importance

explanation and quality is better than quantity; I do not vote on things I do not understand, so take the safe route and spend a little more time explaining 5 arguments than dumping 15 that are all blippy

Use a framework and weighing case as your friend.

AFF - please extend and weigh case

Theory

I love the theory. Few caveats, however.

1) I hate frivolous theory. If you run condo bad on 1 or 2 off, I will likely drop your speaks because you're annoying. That being said, please respond to it, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses to it.

2) Disclosure is a MUST. Don't run disclosure theory if your opponent doesn't know what the wiki is. You don't need to disclose new aff's. 30 is enough time to prep.

3) Please WEIGH as much as possible I don't know the difference between an opponent winning time screw and another winning on the ground.

4) Competing interps - The less I intervene, the better for y'all, especially on the highest layer of debate where the round is won or lost. So I try to limit "gut checks" and reasonability unless otherwise told to in the round.

5) No RVI's default but can be changed with hearty effort

6) Please slow down on theory; it's hard to flow everything at top speed, especially if it's not carded and has 5 sub-points.

How I write my RFD's: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way.” - Michael Scott

How I give my RFDs: “I talk a lot, so I’ve learned to tune myself out.” - Kelly Kapoor

How I feel judging: “If I don’t have some cake soon, I might die.” - Stanley Hudson

What I want to do instead of judging: “I just want to lie on the beach and eat hot dogs. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.” - Kevin Malone

What happens when no one weighs: “And I knew exactly what to do. But in a much more real sense, I had no idea what to do.” - Michael Scott

Have questions about chemistry or Berkeley? Ask away

Debate is something to be proud of, win or lose, and have a smile on your face.

Background

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

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

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

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

A couple of notes

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

Evidence

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

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

Notes on Education

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

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

Evidence often is not enough

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

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

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

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

Counterplans and debate tech

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

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

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

How we treat each other

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

I am a parent judge. I will try to vote on the flow (tech>truth).

I know how bad it is to be judge-screwed. Please help me make the right decision:

* Explicitly state what contentions you were able to extend, turn, front-line, etc. and how your opponent failed to do the same

* Please signpost (tell me where you are on the flow)

* Please limit technical jargon unless you have the time to explain what it means

* I am unlikely to follow any progressive argumentation: theory, Ks, tricks (not that I know what it means), etc.

* You don't have to use your lay cases as long as you speak clearly.

* Assume I don't know the rules well, but don't be afraid of subtlety and sophistication.

* Be explicit with comparatively weighing your impacts and those of your opponent's

* If you believe the rules forbid something like modifying the status quo, introducing new evidence in FF, etc. declare it in order to help me invalidate your opponent's contention

* Speak slower than cattle auctioneers, but if you cannot help yourself, send me a speech doc.

* Logic and historical parallels are sometimes better than a questionable/unwarranted card.

* Feel free to post-round me. I will not get offended by any questions or criticism.

* Add me to email chains vladislav.onik@gmail.com

Good Luck!

i debated at hamilton high and toc qualled senior year

please weigh

while i'm all for dumping responses, i would prefer if y'all actually warrant and implicate your responses

2nd rebuttal doesn't have to frontline defense, but it does have to frontline turns/DA's

if 2nd rebuttal doesn't frontline defense, then 1st summary doesn't have to explicitly extend it

i generally give high speaks unless someone was being rude, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

im open to progressive argumentation, but im fairly new to it so explain it thoroughly

speed doesn't really matter as long as you're clear, but if you're going to spread send a speech doc

if you have any questions feel free to ask before the round

email - pinakpanda@gmail.com

Hi!

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

Some things I look for/like to see:

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

Other notes:

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

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

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

Hey!

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

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

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

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

Good luck!

tom.jj.perret@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Tom - I debated PF at Park City on the national circuit for two years. Please respect your opponents, their pronouns, and the circumstances they might be debating in while online.

Overall, I'm a pretty standard tech judge: If Team A is winning a link to an impact and Team B is not, Team A is going to win. If both teams are winning a link to an impact, I look to the weighing.

General:

I'm flowing what you say, not what I read off of your doc; if I don't understand what you're saying and I flow it incorrectly, that is your fault. That being said, I can handle speed as long as it's clear.

I used to think that this goes with without saying, but recent debates force me to remind you that you need full link extensions in summary and final focus.

I struggle to understand probability weighing; if you've won a link to an impact, it is probable. Impacts that are actually improbable definitionally have tenuous links that are easy to answer analytically. As a result, please don't use your probability "weighing" as a chance to read defense in final focus when it should have just been formulated as a link response in rebuttal.

Weighing is not weighing unless it's comparative.

Frontline in second rebuttal.

I'm not going to call for evidence unless you tell me to.

Theory:

Read theory in the speech after the violation occurs.

You need to extend the interp and drop the debater.

I think that paraphrasing is bad and that disclosure is good, but I'm not going to hack for you if you've lost that debate on the flow.

I default to competing interps, but I'm open to well-warranted explanations of the benefits of reasonability.

Critical Arguments:

I am unfamiliar with the technicalities of k debate, but I am familiar with some critical theory and am open to hearing well-warranted arguments.

I read a good amount of post-fiat structural violence framing in high school.

I will cap your speaks at 27 if you read tricks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About me: I did PF in high school so I have some exposure to the event. I've been judging for the past couple years, so I'll probably be able to make a good decision if you read this and follow along.

Publlic Forum

1. Tech > Truth but if you're rude you're probably getting low speaks
2. Respect is important
3. The team that wins the more impactful argument gets the win
4. Final focus should be voting issues and weighing
5. In terms of speed, 200 wpm is probably my max but I'll flow off a doc if provided
6. I won't evaluate theory or Ks

Debate the way you think will win, and I'll follow along.

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

• PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
• if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
• Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DONT want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
  
  IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

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

Congress:

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

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

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

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

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

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

clash can GO a long way in this event

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

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

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

tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

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

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

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

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

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

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

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

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

May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly, English is not my first language. If you bring me an energy drink the lwoest u can go on speaks is 28 (preferably rockstar or bang).

My background is 90s policy debate for Vestavia Hills HS & Georgetown University. I'm confident that I can handle aggressive pace and esoteric arguments. However, I demand clarity, appreciate intonation, and I am more likely to vote for arguments that I personally believe are true. Please don't read bad evidence. I might punish you for that. Personally, I have an undeniable preference for justice-based arguments like human rights and economic egalitarianism. However, I aspire to be non-interventionist/tabular as a. You can win just about any argument if you make a compelling case within the debate.

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

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

Policy Making: Legislative Model – Weigh advantages versus disadvantages

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

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

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

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

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

I am a parent judge. I prefer clear, concise arguments over speed (please no spreading). Use signposting - it will help me remember and understand your argument. Do not use debate jargon and keep your own time. Be civil and show respect for your opponents. Good luck!

BLAKE UPDATE: If you are reading this and in LD, full disclosure, it has been a minute since I have judged LD and I have yet to do so online! Just be mindful of speed so that you don't get cut off by the tech

if you're going to not read cards or you paraphrase , you should probably strike me. In addition, it shouldn't take you longer than 30 seconds to find evidence. After 30 seconds, I will begin your prep. If it takes you longer than a minute and 30 seconds, all you can bring up is a 30 page PDF, or you cannot produce the evidence at all, you will lose the round. Please send the email chain to both cricks01@hamline.edu and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

• TL;DR- I was primarily an LD debater in high school, debating for Whitefish Bay HS in Wisconsin. I am now an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minnesota. I have different paradigms for different events, so read for the event that pertains to you and all should be fine!

  LD

  Speed: Typically, I can understand most speeds. However, i have let to judge online LD, so going a bit below your top speed may be beneficial to you. Slow down for tags, CP/Plan Texts, and if you’re reading unusual kritiks or frameworks. I want to make sure I spend more time conceptualizing what you’re talking about as opposed to figuring out what you just said. I will say “clear” or “slow” three times before beginning to dock speaks.

  Plans and Counterplans: Follow your dreams. I find these debates to be very interesting and a great way for debaters to creatively attack the topic. Make sure to make your advocacy very clear though.

  Kritiks: While I do love a good Kritik, make sure you’re running it well. Understand your kritik, don’t just pull one out of your backfiles and hope for the best. Again, make your advocacy clear. If you’re kritik is weird, please explain it well.

  Theory: I will vote on theory, but I do have questions about frivolous theory. That said, use your best judgement within the context of the round.

  Philosophy: Yes please! Explain it well and you should be golden!

  PF

  • I will pretty much listen to, flow, and vote off of anything. Have fun :)

  • I do have a high threshold for extensions. Blippy extensions are not my favorite thing, so extend your warrants as well

  • The inability to produce a piece of evidence that you have introduced into the round ends the round in an L-25 for your team

  • theory is lovely. I genuinely believe disclosure is good and that paraphrasing is bad.
  • Provide impact calc throughout the round
  • I will not vote on arguments that are dropped in summary, even if you bring them up in final focus, be warned. I may consider them if the warranting is a little bit blippy in summary, and better explained in final focus, but it has to 1) have been in rebuttal as well and 2) basically the only clean place to vote
  • CLASH IS KEY

  • Please read cards. Paraphrasing is becoming a problem in debate and often leads to some kind of intellectual dishonesty. Let's just avoid that.

  • Try to avoid Grand Cross becoming Grand Chaos in which there's just yelling. It isn't at all productive.

  • 2nd rebuttal should rebuild!

  • extending over ink makes me very sad :(

• Miscellaneous:

  • Do not be a terrible person. Don’t be sexist/homophobic/racist etc. If I see this, not only will I be sad, but so will your speaker points

  • Please please please weigh your arguments.

  • Also- please please please give voters!! If you don’t tell me what you think is important in round, I’ll have to decide for myself and you may not enjoy that.

  • please please please time yourselves and your opponent. I do however have a 10 second grace period to finish arguments you are already in the process of making, but I won't evaluate entirely new args after the speech time

  • Yes- I want to be on the email chain. My email is cricks01@hamline.edu

Put me on the email link chain dinaellis@paulhastings.com
Parent Judge. Please speak clearly, identify your main arguments at the beginning, and make clear transitions. I can't follow people that talk too fast, have too many citations or use debate lingo. I spent most of my career on Capitol Hill working on House Financial Services and Senate Banking Committees. I currently am an attorney at Paul Hastings where I represent fintech, crypto and blockchain companies before Congress and the agencies.

Mark your contentions or I can's follow the arguments.

Nuclear destruction is not something that I think is credible. Your arguments would have to be very good against the other team.

Facts matter but don't bring up brand new arguments at the end.

I am a Lay Parent Judge and this will be my first time ever judging. Please speak at a moderate pace, make your points very clear, and don't use too much debate jargon.

hi hi im soph i debated w ransom everglades for 4 years on the nat circuit. now i am a sophomore at emory and coach:)

preflow before round cuz as soon as everyone is there im starting

my emails are sophia.r9234@gmail.com and carypfd@gmail.com

pls add both emails to the email chain (I prefer email chains to docs) and send speech docs w/ cut cards

(i don't know why this is formatted weirdly tab just does it idk)

1. debate stuff

1. i will vote off the flow

2. tech > truth but don’t say anything ridiculous and this doesnt apply if it makes the round unsafe

3. start weighing in rebuttal if possible and keep it consistent

4. COMPARATIVE WEIGHING don’t just say “scope”

5. PLEASE WEIGH ANYTHING OFFENSIVE (THIS INCLUDES TURNS)

6. no new weighing in final, no offensive overviews starting at first summary but i dont rly like it in 2nd reb either

7. please collapse

8. extend links, not just a tagline with an impact

1. saying “extend tariko ‘21” is also not a link extension

9. signpost, especially in rebuttal, if i don’t know where you are i can’t flow

10. SIGN MY BALLOT FOR ME. tell me what i’m voting for and why. also tell me why i’m not voting for your opponents

11. if there’s no offense i’ll presume for the side that lost the coin flip

12. defense isnt sticky

13. you should have cut cards

1. if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to

14. I'm down w ks and paraphrase theory (shoutout jdog) but technically i never actually RAN a K or initiated theory i just know how they work so take that as u will - that being said I coach 3 K teams and understand how they should be run but in like a watered down pf way so run whatever u want but send rhetoric
15. with that being said- I have a very LOW threshold to feel bad if a team is in varsity and upset about hitting a varsity argument when there is a novice and/or JV division. if you are in varsity, be prepared to hit theory and potentially a K. simply saying "pf is for the public" and/or "I don't know how to answer this" probably wont win my ballot unless there is no nov division and you are clearly a nov. if that is the case-L25 for the team reading varsity stuff on novs, otherwise if you are volunteering to be in varsity nothing is off limits
16. I'm not the best w tricks but I can try
17. if you genuinely think I made a mistake you can postround but not aggressively pls <3
18. im not gonna flow cross so just say it in a speech
19. I don't hack for or against anyone so if you know me, that isn't going to influence my decision and I would be a waste of a strike
20. the only caveat to the thing above is if you are known to be problematic to like an egregious point (i.e having a national news article referencing being publicly antisemitic or saying racist, homophobic, or sexist things) then strike me lol. i cant like separate the art from the artist or whatever. ill down u.

1. speaking stuff

1. send speech docs even if you go slow and send all cut cards

2. i’m ok with speed as long as i can understand you, but i would still send the text to be safe

3. have fun, make jokes, but dont force it cuz thats weird

4. do not give speeches in crossfire, it’s so annoying

5. speaks

1. i start at a 28.5 ish (ill adjust based on how good the round is)

2. I'm a college student who flies to tourneys so if you give me paper that will make me very happy and likely to boost your speaks it will also make my rfd better cuz I don't like laptop flows

3. -.5 speaks for “starting with an off time road map”

4. -1 speaks if you miscut/misconstrue/lie about evidence

5. +1 speaks if you make me laugh

6. please don’t call me judge im literally 18 (you can just not say judge but if you NEED to address me specifically just call me soph i guess)

7. you will get high speaks if you and your partner have good energy together (i wont dock you speaks if you dont cuz you have enough problems at that point)

8. i’ll give speaks based on strategy, how well i can understand you, and (if necessary) rhetoric

9. i’ll drop you w 25s if you say anything offensive

10. at any camp/single pool tourney- if you read a k/theory on novs and it is obvious that they are novs prior to initiating i will drop you with 25s

I am an experienced UDL/college policy debater, HS policy/PF debate coach, college debate coach, policy/PF camp instructor, middle school/high school/college policy/PF/LD judge, middle school policy debate coach, and middle school debate teacher.

I debated at The Baltimore City College (HS) between 2008 and 2010. I debated at Towson University between 2011 and 2014. I coached at The Baltimore City College (HS) between 2010 and 2015. I coached at Binghamton University from 2015 to 2016. I judged CEDA/NDT debates from 2015 to 2017, and briefly in 2020 (online). 

My role as the judge is to listen with openness and mindfulness and evaluate arguments given the evidence presented. To win my ballot: listen to your opponent, always provide warrants, and know what you are talking about.

I do my best to flow all arguments presented in the debate and rely heavily on my flow to determine the round winner.

I'm willing to vote for arguments that are presently clearly and consistently throughout the debate. Debaters should emphasize the value of avoiding relevant impacts or accessing specific advantages. 

contact: ameena.ruffin@gmail.com

TOC:

Evidence and Docs: There was a little confusion about evidence exchange and prep time this morning in the Judges Meeting. PF Tab clarified in an email that page 56/57 PF rules still stand and if Team A calls for Team B's evidence they can get free prep until Team B produces that evidence. When Team A gets that evidence in hand then prep time starts. Please let your judges know they got an email with the clarification. But please just send the evidence ASAP.

Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want.

Emails: Please put gabriel.rusk@gmail.com on the email chain as well as fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com

Uniqueness: If you are running an argument that is based on some fairly recent dynamic or fluid geopolitical scenario you prob should have UQ updates from this week. Postdates aren't automatic evidence triumphs please still implicate why they matter.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

PF:

I did PF and qualled to gold TOC twice.

- if its not in summary it should not be in FF; extend links, warrants, and impacts please don't just say u can extend this

- Frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, defense is sticky but I will not evaluate offense unless it is extended and implicated

- speed is fine. if you will be spreading send me a speech doc (harishri2021@gmail.com)

- sign post please

- tech > truth

• Ks and theory are fine if you run it well and explain (do not do it just to confuse ur opponents)

please for the love of god preflow before the round if I have to wait for you I will be spiced, possibly enough to drop ur speaks

MOST IMPORTANT: if you want me to evaluate ur turns then u must do a 180 degree turn every time you read one. (this is a joke but I will boost ur speaks for it)

Parli:

• make me laugh
• do not make up evidence

I was a policy debater in high school and college, but have been coaching other formats for the past 17 years. I would prefer that you don't speak too fast, as my ear is no longer able to catch everything like it once was. This doesn't mean you have to speak at a conversational pace, just that if you go too fast, I am likely to miss things on my flow.

I will only read evidence after a round if there is a debate about what it actually says. This means you are responsible for articulating the warrants within your evidence throughout the debate if you want those warrants evaluated. Author name extensions are useless in front of me, as unless you are debating about someone's qualifications, it won't matter in my decision calculus, and a name on my flow is nowhere near as useful for you as using that time to articulate the argument itself. Quality of evidence only factors into my decision if there is a debate about why it should.

I will vote in the way I am told to. If there is no debate over the method for deciding between competing claims, I will usually default to voting for the team that wins more arguments overall.

Liz Scott She/Her liztoddscott@gmail.com

Experienced debate parent judge, I suppose best characterized as a "fl-ay judge", however strength of argument, knowledge of your sources, defense of contentions, and rebuttal of opposing contentions will win over whether you dropped a contention in summary.

I generally have no issue with speed, but more isn’t always better. I often favor a team that makes it easy for the judges to decide by collapsing on their strongest point(s) rather than extending all contentions through Final Focus, be bold! Tell me why how have defended your best argument and refuted your opponents’.

Preference for polite engagement, please be nice. Zero tolerance for anything blatantly offensive or rude, yelling is not convincing.

I have now officially judged 1 kritik round but I have observed and am supportive of progressive debate.

I will call for cards and review evidence only if it is contested by your opponent.

If you are going to use catastrophic magnitude weighing such as nuclear annihilation or total climate destruction your link needs to be very strong. In fact, just stop using extinction arguments, I'm sick of weighing extinction against structural violence (for example).

All prep is running prep, IE, I will start my timer when you say you have started and stop it when you stop regardless of if you tell me you are “taking 30 seconds”.

Please remember that most judges are volunteers and listen to the same material all day, often crossfire is the most interesting part of the debate for the judges so don’t discount the round, it can definitely have a large impact on subsequent rounds and the momentum of the debate, however I don’t flow through crossfire so if an important rebuttal or turn comes up in cross, make sure you raise it in second speak and/or rebuttal/FF.

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

I am a LAY judge.

Speak at a normal pace and explain everything and try to be as clear as possible.Be polite to your opponent and be respectful.

The more I understand your arguments, the more likely I will vote for you. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus.

Please send me your case at erdeepika2@gmail.com before we start our round .

Welcome, debaters and speakers! I am glad to be here as your judge bringing with several years of judging experience. My goal is to ensure a fair and constructive environment for all participants.

Debaters:

• Value solid logic and reasoning. Build a strong case, present clear arguments, and demonstrate your ability to critically analyze and respond to your opponent's points.
• Advocate your position effectively. Persuasion is key, so make sure to articulate your stance clearly and provide compelling reasons for your audience to embrace your perspective.
• Utilize evidence judiciously. Cite credible sources and integrate evidence seamlessly into your arguments. Be prepared to defend the reliability of your sources if questioned.
• Maintain professional decorum. Respect your opponents and fellow debaters. Keep the discourse focused on ideas rather than personal attacks.

Speakers:

• Clear organization is crucial. Your speech should have a logical flow, with well-defined introductions, body, and conclusions. Ensure that your audience can easily follow your speech.
• Reasoning analysis is fundamental. Delve into the core of your topic, providing insightful analysis and demonstrating a deep understanding of the subject matter.
• Effective delivery is key. Pay attention to your tone, pace, and emphasis. Engage your audience through your voice and body language. A well-delivered speech is often as persuasive as a well-constructed argument.

Please take this opportunity to showcase your speech and debate skills. I am here to encourage growth and provide constructive feedback. Good luck to each one of you, and have a wonderful event!

TL;DR: warrant, collapse, implicate, weigh, extend consistently and don't be offensive/rude. Add me to the email chain: Alina.shivji1@gmail.com

SPEED

Go as fast as you want, and I’ll flow it. If you’re unclear, I’ll say clear twice and then put my pen down. After that, what I can follow is entirely based on your clarity.

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS

Feel free to read them. That said, these arguments don’t typically function well in PF due to time constraints. So, I do prefer substance in PF. If you do debate progressively, note that crossfire and flex prep serves as accountability on your advocacy. My default is reasonability. If you want me to approach these args from a different standpoint, tell me.

Feel free to read arguments about any of the -isms. But, make sure in the process, you’re not otherizing. For example, if you are not a Muslim woman who identifies with the LGBT+ community, don’t read arguments about it. Also, if you are reading any arguments concerning sexual harassment/assault/suicide/etc., I expect a trigger warning BEFORE the round.

EXTENSIONS

I have a high threshold for extensions. I expect you to extend the internal links to the argument as well as the impact. In other words, just tell me how you get from point A to C before you extend the impact. If you don’t, I’ll still evaluate the arg but I’ll be less inclined to vote for it.

Defense is sticky until it’s frontlined

FRONTLINING

respond to offensive responses ie turns and terminal defense before you access weighing in the second rebuttal

WEIGHING

Tell me WHY the extended argument matters more than your opponents. If your opponents give me a different mechanism than you to prefer their argument, explain why your mechanism should be evaluated first (metaweighing).

Don’t introduce new weighing in second FF unless your opponents made a critical weighing concession in GCX. The only other exception to that rule is when neither team has weighed up until the second FF.

INTERVENTION

I try not to intervene as much as possible. If there’s no offense in the round and its a policy-oriented topic, I’ll default neg aka the status quo. If it's not a policy-oriented topic, I'll default towards what's most probable.

I won’t call for evidence unless you tell me to. If the evidence is miscut, I won’t evaluate it and I will penalize your speaks for it.

TECH > TRUTH

If you didn't say it in the round, don't expect me to evaluate it regardless of how "true" the argument may be. That said, use common sense and have good judgement. If you say something incorrect, it won't influence my decision, but I will call you out after the round.

IMPLICATE!

The link to an argument matters but if you don't tell me HOW it fits in the round, I won't know what to do with it. So, tell me what argument serves as turns/terminal defense, why, and what that means for you/your opponents in the round.

Don't be rude or disrespectful or you lose points. Speaker points will be decided on a logarithmic scale (base 2) (joke)

I was a former public forum debater so I know how everything works.

Ill flow the round (ecxcept cross) and time each speech (but I won't interfere or give time signals), Ill give 10 seconds of grace time for every speech, but ill stop flowing immediately afterwards.

I can follow flow decently so if you want to be super flow thats fine, but in general I prefer a compelling narrative that paints the round in a clean way. I can't handle theory though so if you want to run a theory or kritik, make sure you walk through it very carefully and explain it very well or else you're just wasting time.

Also you must add me to the email chain (shengshu@andrew.cmu.edu) so I can fact check suspicious claims (I will also call cards occasionally). If you're misrepresenting evidence, I will not favor the ballot to your side.

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

I just graduated from the University of Georgia and I will be attending law school next year!

Please add maristpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain

Debate is first and foremost a safe, fun, and educational activity so we should do our best to keep it that way

TL;DR: I am a tech judge and I will vote off my flow. Please do whatever you do best and enjoy the round.

General important stuff:

1) Extend every part of the argument... uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact. A claim without a warrant is not an argument. If you do not extend your argument then I can not vote on it. I really do listen and pay close attention to this so please do. I will vote with no shame against teams that probably would have won if they had just extended their argument fully.

2) I cannot stress enough that fewer well developed arguments will always be better than blips with no argument development or good warrants. I've noticed teams that collapse and more thoroughly explain their arguments tend to win my ballot more often than not against a team that goes for too much.

3) Please weigh your arguments. Explain why your argument is more important than the other teams.

4) My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate. When prep time ends you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time.

5) Second rebuttal must answer first rebuttal, defense is not sticky

Other specific stuff:

Argument types:

I don’t care what type of argument you read as long as it is well explained, has warrants, and is weighed (case, k’s, theory... whatever are all fine). You do what you're best at!

Speed:

You can go as fast or slow as you want. I will be good flowing any speed you decide to go. My only caveat if you go fast is to slow a bit down on taglines and still signpost well

Theory:

Any theory arguments need to be real violations that have real impacts. Frivolous theory is unpleasant to judge and will be almost impossible to win in front of me. I believe paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. At this point in the activity reading cuts cards and disclosing has become a norm that most teams adhere to which I think makes my threshold for responses to the shell even higher than it has been in the past.

Any theory argument should be read in the speech directly after the violation. For example disclosure theory should be read in constructive, but if a team reads cut cards in case and then paraphrases rebuttal then you read paraphrasing in rebuttal/summary whichever is next.

Speaks:

If you flow on paper and give second half speeches off of that flow a small boost in speaks. I give speaks primarily based on quality of the debating in round. Making good strategic decisions, collapsing, and weighing are all things that can help your speaks. Being nice and not wasting time also help. I do not really care how "good" you sound if you are not making good arguments at the same time. To put this into perspective, when I debated I always felt that winning rounds was more important than sounding good, but with winning generally comes better speaks.

First time parent judge. Speak clearly, slowly and calmly.

Hello y'all!!

My name is Schylar and I just enetered my junior year of college at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. I debated all four years of high school at Timberline High School in Boise, Idaho. I did policy my freshman and sophomore year. My junior year and senior year I did PF. If you have any more questions, you should ask me before the debate. I will try my best to put everything on the ballot, but if you have more questions you can email me. My email is schylar.jordan.smith@gmail.com. I am not familiar with any of the topics so try and explain them without missing the more niche parts of the debate! Debate is supposed to be fun and educational so I am fine if you do pretty much anything you want. I have some specifics laid out for the different debate types so read those :)

I hate overviews!

I think that they use up valuable speech time and aren't strategic. Also most overviews are just arguments that can be put somewhere else on the flow.

Policy:

I am basically a TABS/ flow judge in policy. I am fine with any argumentation but you better know how to execute it. On topicality you need to go slower than regular to make sure I get all the standards and voters. On disads I am looking for clash. If the aff hasn't done enough coverage and I still think the impact of the disad is reasonable, I will vote neg. If the 2NR goes for a disad or two I still want to see sufficient extention of the case debate. Other than that I want strategic debating. For Ks, I am pretty fine with anything. I am the least framiliar with them, but still understand the debate. Framework on the K is really important to my voting so don't just wash over it or go through it really quick. I am fine with any speed but slow down on tag lines so I can flow them. I rarely flow author names so refer to the arguments by author name and what the argument is. You can tag team in CX but if one partner dominates both answering periods or questioning periods, I will give you both lower speaker points. Put me in the email chain... its at the top :)

PF:

I have the most experience in Public Forum. I went to nationals in PF in 2021 and 2022. I view PF as the debate type that any one can judge. That means that you should be very good at explaining and persuading the judge. Other than that I think you can do anything that you want. I think that you should have some sort of framework because that helps me evaluate the round. Cross fire periods should be an equal amount of questions and answers. If someone dominates then I will lower both you and your partner's speaker points. Final focus is the most persuading to me if you clearly lay out voters. A lot of debaters try and touch on both sides of the flow, but with so little time this is not very helpful.

LD:

LD is very interesting to me. When it comes to arguments I am basically a TABS judge, although I still want the value/criterion debate. I vote on a few things when it comes to it. (1) If the other side proves that your case doesn't fit under your value or your criterion. (2) You should try to prove that your value and criterion are best for evaluating both sides. I am fine with any argument, including CPs on the neg. CX should be an equal amount of questions and answers. If you dominate the CX periods, you will get lower speaker points. In other words, let your opponent answer/ask questions.

I'm a PF coach and big advocate of empowering student voice. The fact that you’re here and well prepared is already impressive. It does not matter to me whether you speak quickly or slowly. That's a matter of your own comfort. Be respectful of all in the room. Theory is not my favorite. If it's used in the spirit of undermining your opponents rather than encouraging debate, it won't go over well with me.

Focus on the resolution and your position. Challenges against well intentioned preparation are off-putting and focussing on details outside the round often don’t work for me. If you have triggers to sensitive material, let your opponents know in advance..

I will be impressed by sound research, critical thinking and persuasive argumentation. Outline your intentions and accomplishments clearly. More important than anything is respect for your opponents' and the experience of debating. They will present valid arguments too, so don't tell me everything they said was wrong. Be judicious yourself as a debater and consider arguments that are more convincing in terms of impact. Consider your flow. Concede to their strengths, but convince me that yours have a greater impact. Please weigh your impact in final focus and don’t bring up anything new there. Quantifying an impact is helpful, but only if it comes from a credible source. Please don’t make up numbers.

Use crossfire to clarify any misconceptions. It's not a place to bring up new information.

Call cards only when seeing them will bring true value. Sometimes this is done to stall for time and often that exposes less than stellar evidence. Be careful not to set this trap for yourself.

Ks can work for me when well linked. I need you to spell out the probability of extreme impacts and what chain of events could set them off in an aff/neg world. Be careful with theory. It’s risky and I won’t vote for it unless you prove the purpose makes for a better debate.

Most of all, enjoy, reflect and grow from every debating experience. I will try to give you the best feedback I can to help you learn and grow.

Please add me to email chains of evidence exchange: dsorobey@ssis.edu.vn

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD and policy at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its and LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoid flex prep.

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

I am a 3rd year parent judge.

I prefer when debaters speak in a conversational cadence. I have trouble following the points and arguments when debaters speak quickly.

I try to listen closely and understand your argument. When evidence is presented fast, and in large doses, it can be overwhelming and go past me. So, I prefer when debaters choose the most relevant evidence and explain why this is critical to their side. Please include me on emails when you share evidence.

I appreciate sign-posting. Help me understand and follow your approach.

I am inclined to appreciate teams that debate well while being respectful of their opponents. I'm put off by rudeness and disrespect.

Good luck and I look forward to judging the round!

Hello, my name is Qibin

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

A few preferences:

1) Please don't rush/speak too fast

2) I may ask to see the evidence you cite

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

4) Please weigh in summary and final focus

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

Let's have a fun and educational round!

EMAIL CHAIN: jsydnor@altamontschool.org -- all rounds should set up email chains before scheduled start time. I would like to be included.

--------

Former policy debater in HS and College. I come into LD from that background, and I love seeing where LD and policy are in communication with one another. While I'm familiar with K's, CP's, PICs, plan-focus debates, planless K Affs, T, Theory... I'm less familiar with some of the other arguments like high phil, a prioris, NIBs, etc. that are more well known in LD.

I am am open to most arguments, but I am unwilling to vote on arguments I don't understand enough to give a coherent RFD. The burden remains with the debater to make a sufficiently clear argument I can grasp and understand as a path to the ballot. I don't feel bad saying "I didn't understand this, so I didn't vote on it."

I don't buy into the argument division between "circuit" and "local" debate and that I should inherently discount arguments or styles because it's Alabama not a "national" tournament. Any kind of exclusion needs to be theoretically justified.

Speed: 7.5/10. Speed is fine but debate is still a communication-based activity and I'm a poorly aging millennial. Sending speech docs is not a substitute for clarity.

--------

-CP: I default sufficiency framing and will judge kick unless told otherwise. Would rather hear args about solvency deficit, perm, and issues with NB than rely on theory to answer.

-K: I think all forms of debate are great, but K's and K Affs offer something unique to the activity that enhances its pedagogical value. However, that doesn't mean I know your specific literature or that I am going to immediately buy what you're selling. I like close readings of the 1AC to generate links as quality critical work.

-K Affs: Go for it. I believe the Aff has to advance some contestable methodology beyond "res is bad, reject the res." I usually believe offense on method is the most interesting site for clash. T-USFG/FW isn't off the table as a true guaranteed generic response and can be a really strong option given the way some K teams write their 1AC.

-Theory: Not my favorite debate but I know it can be important/strategic. Go a little slower on this if you want me to get follow the intricacies of the line-by-line. I have some hesitation with the direction disclosure and wiki theory arguments are going, but I still vote on it.

-T vs Plan Affs --I believe plans have the burden to be topical, and topicality is determined by interpreting words in the resolution. If you read a plan that is not whole res then you should always go into the round proving you definitionally are topical. I generally believe analytic counter-interps (like mainstream theory debates on norms) and reasonability alone are not winning options. Has the Neg read a definition that excludes your plan? If yes, you have a burden to counter-define in a way that is inclusive of your Aff. I am very persuaded that, absent a sufficient "we meet," if the Aff cannot counter-define a word in the resolution that is inclusive of the plan then I should A] not consider the plan reasonable, even if reasonability is good, and B] no sufficient competing interpretation of the topic, which is an auto-win for the Neg. (K Affs can be an exception to most of this because the offense to T and method of establishing limits is different.)

- T vs K Affs -- Willing to vote on it insofar as you win that you've presented a superior model for debate and that voting for you isn't violent/complicit. I generally believe fairness is not an impact. I like strong answers to meta-level questions, such as Aff descriptions of what debate and proceduralism vs debate as a game/site for unique type of education and iterative testing of advocacies.

-Phil: You should assume I know 0 of the things necessary for you to win this debate and that you have to do additional groundwork/translation to make this a viable option. I've only seen a few phil debates and my common issue as a judge is that I need a clear articulation of what the offensive reason for the ballot is or clear link to presumption and thus direction and meaning of presumption.

--------

If you choose to not set up an email chain or a reasonable alternative and then waste a bunch of time during the round with, your speaker points will be capped at a 27.5. Debaters saying "I'm not spreading so we don't need to share" or, even worse, "I don't want your team to have my arguments" are huge pet peeves of mine. This activity is net better when you can look at your opponent's evidence, analyze it, and contest it. Calling for cards is not sufficient nor time conscious. Just send the doc with the evidence you're going to read in that speech before the speech.

Hello,

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

Thank you and good luck!

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Cultural Competency Certificate

Please make your contention loud and clearly.

Regular speed would be ideal.

Love debate.

Relatively new judge, here are some things I prefer:

above all, have fun!

Please send case speech docs before the round starts so I can refer to it during your speeches: financezhang2012@hotmail.com

Please copy me on email chains

Don’t talk too fast, explain things and enunciate well.

Don’t be rude to the other team, especially during Crossfire. Agree to disagree

Follow time limits; I will stop taking notes after the requisite time ends. (Time your speeches!)

Respect my decision, absolutely no post-rounding

Weighing is good.

evidence exchanges should take no more than 1 minute. After I will start using your prep time.

do NOT run sexist or racist arguments.

(For email chain: michael.christler@gmail.com)

Background: I did college LD and Parli for two years but I'd like to stress I'm still developing as a judge. I'm familiar with a fair amount of debate concepts but I'm not an expert. Just putting that out there.

I'm a flow judge. You tell me to extend, I'll extend. Tell me to cross-apply, I'll cross-apply.

Overview: I prefer the debate to be about the resolution. I think no matter what kind of argument you want to run, it's a way for all of us to at least be on the same page.

Spreading/Presentation: For LD/policy, I'm fine with y'all spreading evidence so long as I have cards to look at (prefer speechdrop but can do email chain if it's necessary) and I can follow along. Parli, not so much. Would definitely prefer you not spread for either when it comes to analytics. I won't dock speaker points for this but please keep it in mind.

What I probably will give higher speaker points for (for those who care) is good presentation: pacing, voice inflection, staging/use of the room's space, etc.

Impacts: The debate for me comes down to impact calc. Telling a powerful story with your speeches is really important to me. I.e., what does your world look like at the end of the day and why should I care about it.

T's: I'm very much a topicality guy. Not strong on other theory/procedural arguments but you can bet I'll vote on a convincing T. As an English major, I love semantics debates and reasons to prefer one definition/interpretation over another. In the debate space, you can argue whatever you please so long as you tell me why it matters.

K's: I'm fine with Kritiks but please make them understandable and accessible to everyone in the room. If I look confused, it's because I'm not following your K. Make it organized, structured, and easy to follow. Go for the Alt and Impacts, compare to the Aff. Alt solvency and strong links are really important to me. For the ROB, explain clearly why my vote has an impact within and outside the round.

(Note: I'm not a fan of Critical Affs)

Signpost well and please make the flow organized as much as you can.

A final note: Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents in round. In my year of debating I met people I was happy to debate with and people who made the activity worse for me. Please do not be like the latter.

If you have any questions, let me know before the round starts. I'm happy to answer any to the best of my ability.

Good luck.

I'm a parent judge. I will be evaluating this debate based on the following criteria:

1. I expect all participants to adhere to the allotted time for speeches and crossfires. This demonstrates respect for your fellow debaters and ensures that the debate runs smoothly.

2. It is crucial that all participants maintain a civil and respectful tone throughout the debate. Personal attacks or disrespectful language will not be tolerated.

3. I encourage all participants to present clear, concise, and coherent arguments that are accessible to a non-expert audience. The strength of your arguments will be a key factor in determining the outcome of the debate.

4. In the back half of the debate, I expect all participants to collapse their arguments and weigh them against their opponents' arguments. This will help to clarify the key points of the debate and allow for a more nuanced evaluation.

Overall, I am looking for thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments that are supported by evidence and presented in a respectful and professional manner. Good luck!

I coach Speech & Debate at East Ridge High School in Woodbury, Minnesota.

Background:

High School Debate (Iowa): Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Speech

College Debate (Loyola U): Parliamentary Debate

Coach/Mentoring: The Chicago Debate League, MN Urban Debate League

Retired Attorney – Business Law for pay and Constitutional Law for fun.

Paradigm for Congressional Debate:

Hello!

I am a lay judge that looks at the team that speaks the most clearly. Speak slower as I value clarity over speed. As long as you explain your arguments in an understandable way, I will be able to take note of it. Teams that present themselves in a more confident and concise way will end up getting my vote.

No spreading or I will drop the team.

Other than that, basically anything is fair game, just don't be mean to me or your opponents.

And include me in the email chain: marybelleuk99@gmail.com

I am a lay judge and a parent of a debater at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School. While I have judged several tournaments over the past year I am not an experienced debate judge.

Please avoid the urge to speak very quickly and try to communicate your arguments in a clear, concise manner. It is also very helpful if you identify the arguments that you are asking me to base my decision on and how they contrast with the corresponding positions taken by your opponents.

My son considers me a “lay judge”. I like logical arguments, but that doesn't mean it has to be a common argument (in fact, I like a variety of arguments because it spices up the debate).

For your debate, please do not “spread”; speak at a normal pace so I can understand. I listen to cross, but I do not vote what happens in cross unless you can’t defend case. Since I am listening to crossfire, it will play a role on how many speaks I will give you. I will give feedback and explain why I voted for a certain team after the round is finished. If I am judging an online debate tournament, I expect debaters to send me a speech doc for constructive AND rebuttal before you begin speaking to yang_wang1@hotmail.com because it helps me follow arguments easier. (use saved attachments or paste into the email content, NO google docs share please)

Time your opponents’ speeches and feel free to interrupt when time is up. Please stick to the allotted time frames. I prefer off time road maps and please stick to them. Please be respectful to your opponents at all times or I will deduct speaks. I take notes. Good luck.

Hi. I am a lay parent judge. Please speak clearly. I'm a fan of courtesy and clarity.

Best of luck at the tournament!

Hi friends! My name is Abby (they/she) and I was a Public Forum debater, Extemper, and Congressional debater for just about the entirety of high school! I participated in both local and national circuits, so I will most likely have a decent idea of what you’re talking about. I was a pretty traditional debater from a pretty traditional circuit, but I’ll be able to understand just about any type of argument as long as it’s explained well. I'm also lowkey a flow judge so keep that in mind! In case you care, I’m currently a junior at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities studying Sociology of Law, Criminology, and Justice as well as Political Science (if you have any questions about college sociology/poli sci programs or the U, I am totally willing to answer them!).

If you only have like 10 seconds before the round, quick notes:

• Be respectful!

• Include me in the email chain/evidence doc (my email is at the bottom). I <3 receiving speech docs, too.

• WEIGH!

• Tech > Truth unless it's something really silly.

• Clearly explain any theory or anything wildly non-traditional.

• Explain more complex arguments/link chains and explain them WELL.

• Evidence fraud is icky. Don't do it.

• Please turn off your ringtones/alarms!

• Spreading has no place in PF. Talking fast is fine, but make sure you're speaking at an understandable, clear pace. If you plan on exceeding 230wpm, I want a speech doc or something of the sort beforehand so I can better follow along. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.

• Treat everyone equally regardless of their identity or skill level.

• I forget to mention this before rounds but I am generally a very expressive person- please ignore my face while you're speaking, sometimes I just can't contain myself. My facial expressions are not an indication of my ballot or your performance.

• If you’re reading something potentially triggering, have a backup case ready and ask everyone in the round if they’re okay with you reading it. Don’t read overly graphic arguments in front of me. I will drop you if you read something that requires a trigger warning but is not given one. Mentioning things like war, genocide, and sexual violence is fine as long as you don't get into the nasty details without a TW.

• If you purposefully misgender or use any offensive language towards me or your opponents, I WILL drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible. Don’t even try to get away with hatred, I’ll catch it and cause problems.

• Have fun!

Long version:

Constructive:

I like framework, but I won’t die if you don’t introduce one. I was usually first speaker when I was a debater, so I get the struggle of fitting everything in within four minutes, but don’t be gasping for breath while screaming 50 different contentions at me. Also, and I can't emphasize this enough, EXPLAIN THEORY, LONG LINK CHAINS, AND ANYTHING SUPER COMPLICATED. It makes things easier for me and for your opponents. Debate isn't fun if nobody understands what's going on.

Rebuttal:

For both first and second rebuttal, address framework if one is presented in the round!! Give me reasons to prefer your framework over theirs. If you don’t, I’ll prefer your opponent’s automatically or I’ll default to a cost-benefit analysis. Use your time wisely. I don't care if the first rebuttal doesn't do any frontlining on their case, but it might be helpful to you.

CX:

Don’t be a jerk. Don’t talk over your opponents if you can help it, and please don’t yell. On the same note, don’t be afraid to be assertive! As a non-male debater, I noticed that my male opponents often overlooked me or didn’t take me seriously- don’t let them do that to you. I’ll probably pay attention to cross, but I won’t flow anything unless you explicitly bring something up in a speech. If you’re being rude or disrespectful to your opponents or partner, it’ll hurt your speaks and possibly even impact my ballot.

Summary:

WEIGH!!! I know everyone says that, but it’s super important! Remember to address everything important and set up voters for your partner’s final focus. When it comes to weighing evidence, don’t just cite the names and dates of the cards- tell me what they say and why I should prefer your card.

Final Focus:

I just want you to give me voters. Sum up the round accurately and touch on everything your partner said in summary, even if it’s just for 5 seconds. Use your time wisely.

Speaker Points:

I generally give really good speaker points as long as I feel you deserve them (I’m talking 28-30). I can handle speed for the most part, but I do believe that spreading has no place in PF. I’ll stop flowing if I cannot understand you, but I’ll let you know before it gets to that point (most likely by flailing my arms around or doing something of the sort). Just remember: I’m not stupid. Don’t treat me like I am, otherwise your speaks will suffer. Also, don’t be a jerk (if you’re really rude, I will drop you)!! Don’t throw around fancy debate language and then not elaborate. Using buzzwords like magnitude, turn, and fiat means NOTHING if you don’t explain yourself.

LD:

I've watched a total of 2 LD rounds in my entire life and only judged 1. I don't know a lot about it. If I'm judging you, I apologize. Most of what I said above applies to you, too. Just speak at a decent pace (not spreading pls) and explain everything well. We'll get through this unfortunate circumstance together.

Miscellaneous:

• I don’t tolerate hate or any bad -isms/-phobias (sexism, racism, xenophobia, etc.).

• I’ll time your speeches, but make sure to time yourself too! If you go over time, I’ll give you until the end of your sentence to finish. When it comes to cross, I'll let you finish answering the question if you go over time.

• Evidence fraud is gross. Don’t do that (I really don't want to deal with it).

• If you’re a varsity/more experienced team, DON’T be mean or condescending to a JV/novice team. They’re learning. Be good role models.

• Please please please turn off any obnoxious ringtones or notifications coming from your phone while you’re debating. They drive me absolutely crazy. That includes those annoying beeping timers.

• I will not count the time it takes to send/receive speech docs or cards as prep unless it's taking an excessively long time. Same goes for resolving tech issues.

• Don’t be afraid to make a joke, be a little bit sassy, and have fun! Debate is supposed to be educational, but that doesn’t mean it has to be boring!

• I will ALWAYS disclose after the round unless I am explicitly told not to or if extreme circumstances arise. I do not want to spend an hour after the round giving oral critiques so I'll keep it short and leave my lengthy RFD for the ballot. I will not give you my flow. They're usually incomprehensible anyways so there's no point in asking me to share it.

If you have any questions or comments, don’t be afraid to email me! I’ll do my best to respond ASAP! Include me in any email chains and/or evidence docs used in round. If you ask in round if I want to be added to the evidence doc/email chain, I’ll probably be very sad because that means you didn’t read my paradigm. :(

email: wichlacz.ab@gmail.com

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.

Hi, I’m Jack Williams (He/Him). I attend The Ohio State University, majoring in PPE (political science, philosophy, and economics), as well as Data Analytics. I debated PF for 4 years. A couple toc bids, 4x state qual, top 25 @ nats.

I encourage you to ask me directly before the round if you have any further questions about how I judge or clarifications on the paradigm.

I would like to be on any card exchange doc or email chain: Jackw2931@gmail.com

I will not vote for any argument that is blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. Content warnings if necessary please.

Overall, the less work you do for me, the more interventionist I have to be in terms of weighing and evaluating arguments, which I don't want to do. Do the warranting, the weighing, and the analysis for me so that I don't have to do it in my head at the end of the round. Essentially, give me the why's - why is your argument true, why is your argument the most important, and why that offense that wins the round. If you do that, you're making the ballot a lot easier for both of us.

Also, have fun! I like when people make jokes/make me laugh. Just don't do it at your opponent's expense.

TL;DR of what I value in terms of the ballot:

1. Extend your arguments. In terms of case arguments, the rule of thumb is that I won't vote for your argument if after your extension I'm not able to, from the flow, re-articulate how you get from resolution to impact. Collapsing in the back half of the round will only help you. If you don't collapse at all, you generally are hurting the clarity of your argument and ability to win the round.

2. I’m a little more forgiving on extending turns and defense, but I still need warranting, not just “Flow the Levi evidence.” If the impact of your link turn is not the same as the impact your opponent reads, you need to implicate/weigh your turn.

3. I’ll evaluate any framework/overview if it is warranted or dropped. If there are competing frameworks I need to know why I ought to prefer your framework, otherwise, I will make the decision myself.

4. Pre-reqs will come first unless I'm told otherwise

5. PLEASE WEIGH. I think every judge says this but that’s because it's important. If you want to win my vote, you can make it very easy for yourself by leaving me no need to do my own analysis/weighing because you’ve done it yourself. Metaweigh if there is competing weighing. Otherwise, I will default to util.

6. Second speaking team needs to frontline, at bare minimum, all offense in rebuttal, however I prefer all defense to be frontlined. Turns dropped through second rebuttal are conceded.

7. Defense isn’t sticky, but again, I'll be a little more forgiving about extending defense if you have already read it in rebuttal.

8. If you tell me to call for your opponents evidence, I will look at it. I’ll also call for evidence if it’s important to my decision.

9. If there is somehow zero offense in the round, I’ll default to the side that is the status quo.

10. Speaks are a combination of how well you speak and how well you strategically debate the round in terms of collapsing and weighing.

TL;DR of my personal preferences:

• Give me a brief off time road map before summary and final focus speeches (and where you're starting if you're the second rebuttal)
• Time your own prep
• I can handle speed, but I prefer a moderate speaking pace, especially online
• Collapsing in second rebuttal will only help you on my ballot. Clearer, more in depth argumentation will always be better in terms of my ballot as opposed to sheer quantity.
• If you contradict yourself and you fail to clarify which side of the contradiction is true, I will strike both aspects off my flow. I don't think it's fair when teams seesaw on a contradiction and then go for the one that advantages them the most later in the round.
• If you're reading an off send me the text before you read it
• Theory is fine if you aren't using it in an exclusionary manner; don't abuse the privilege. If you plan on running, please read the bottom section on theory. I also won't vote off frivolous theory. Probably don't run a K.
• Call for all the evidence you want, and if you tell me to call for evidence I will. If there is a hard clash of evidence I may call for both pieces.
• If you email me your case text before the round starts I will boost your speaks by .5 (paraphrased or cut cards is fine, it doesn't make a difference to me)

Specifics:

I'm a pretty expressive person -- If you look at how I react to what you're saying in the round, you can probably get a pretty good idea of how I feel about the argument you're making

Speed - I can handle speed, but I don’t really like it, especially online. Speaking at a faster pace is fine if you're making good decisions about what you're saying, and not just putting arguments out for the sake of quantity, but overall being able to speak at a more reasonable pace tells me that you can think critically, debate smart, and decide on the most effective arguments, and that you're not just trying to spread through tons of pre-cut cards and responses. If I miss a response because you're going too fast, that's on you, sorry :(

Tech>Truth, but not all the way. I love unique and tech-y arguments. That being said, if your argument is way way out-there and absurd, I will probably have a lower threshold for response.

Moreover, I’ll go with whatever is warranted or carded, but I’m not going to pretend I’m completely tabula rasa. If you make stuff up and it is quite obviously wrong, I'm not going to give you the win because the other team doesn't have cards to counter your made-up claims. If you have the evidence or the warranting to back your statement up, I’ll flow it.

Crossfire - Cross is binding, but I won’t vote off something that is only mentioned in cross unless you bring it up in a later speech.

Evidence - I encourage you to call for as much evidence as you would like, but unless you feel it is necessary, I would try to avoid making evidence indicts your primary method of response. In addition:

1. I will not buy an indict that says “Their source is biased” unless you explain to me why the source is biased.

2. I may call for any evidence that critical to my decision.

3. If you tell me to call for evidence I will.

4. If you severely misconstrue evidence, the punishment will range from me just dropping the argument to you getting dropped entirely, depending on how severe your infraction is. Expect lower speaks regardless of what I end up doing with the argument.

5. Please don't tell me that your card explains it all, and please don't tell me that your card is superior to theirs, unless you have actual, detailed reasons why that is true.

Rebuttal - Second speaking team should frontline defense - at the bare minimum any offense, but ideally all defense. I personally think it is strategic for the second speaking team to start collapsing and weighing here because it makes the back half of the round much cleaner, but I won’t hold it against you if you decide not to. If you drop turns through second rebuttal, they are conceded. Also, Advantages/Disadvantages are fine in first rebuttal (though not a huge fan), but not second.

Summary/FF

1. I won't vote for your argument if I'm not able to re-articulate how you get from the resolution to your impact.

2. Analysis that's that's unresponded to in the next speech is functionally conceded

3. First Final is the latest I want to see new weighing. No overviews/prereq stuff new in first final

4. With 3 minute summaries, I don’t believe defense is sticky. If it is important enough to be in the round, it needs to be in summary

5. Offense must be in both speeches, or else I will not vote off of it.

Weighing - Please weigh, it will literally win you my vote if you do it and the other team doesn’t. As long as there's a link to your impact, I will literally vote off of any impact if you tell me why it is the most important one in the round. If there is competing weighing but I don’t get warranting as to why I should prefer one team’s weighing over the other’s I’ll default to my own analysis, which is almost always util. Realistically, you don’t want to have me making that decision for you, so give me the analysis yourself please.

Frameworks/overviews - If you run a framework/overview:

1. If it isn’t responded to, and you extend it all the way through the round, that is how I will evaluate the round

2. Warrant your framework

1. If you do not warrant your framework, I will only vote off of it if it is 100% dropped by the other team

3. When frameworks clash, I need to hear real, logical, statistical, or impactful reasons why one is superior to the other, not merely that yours is "better." Tell me why.

Theory - I have a fair bit of experience with theory. I think that PF, being an event designed to have a low barrier to entry, is not intended to have theory. That being said, I will absolutely vote off of a theory shell, but if you are going to run one, don't use it in an exclusionary manner -- I have a fairly high threshold for theory in PF -- the abuse you are pointing out needs to be explicitly clear.

(The following paragraph does NOT apply to theory being applied to an equity abuse -- e.g., misgendering, racism, IVIs relating to discriminatory evidence)

In addition, because I don't think that theory should be used in an exclusionary manner against teams that might not have experienced it, if you run it, 1. My threshold for response for a team that does not regularly debate circuit or have theory experience will be lower -- I will not expect them to go line by line on your standards and voters, and I will give them the benefit of the doubt on the application of their responses. 2. You need to be consistent -- I will hold it against you if you are running it for the sake of the win. If you want to change norms, it better be a norm you care about. If you do run it, it must be run in your next speech following the violation.

Kritiks - I’ve never debated or judged a round with a Kritik, so I’m not entirely sure what it is supposed to look like. If you can simplify it for me like I'm a lay judge, then maybe. But probably just stay away.

Good luck, and have fun!

PF coach for Los Altos & Mountain View. Competed in congress & PF when I was a student.

Brief off-time roadmaps are fine when needed. Be sure to signpost and let me know which arguments you're addressing. Please don't spread– you will do better if I'm actually able to flow everything you say. When addressing a case line by line (such as in rebuttal), try not to jump around. Go down the flow from top to bottom.

By summary and final focus, you should collapse on the arguments you feel are the most important. Tell me what your key voter issues are and why you believe you're winning those issues.

If you and your opponent have evidence that say opposite things, extending your evidence has to be more than just re-stating it. Why should I prefer your evidence? Why does it still stand even with the evidence your opponents presented?

Weighing needs to be comparative. It's not enough to say your impacts are big– the important thing is they're bigger than your opponents'.

Speaker points are awarded based on confidence, appropriate volume & pace, sportsmanship, and overall demeanor.

Not a big fan of theory or Ks.

Good luck and don't be afraid to ask any questions you have before the round!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-substance (prefer not to judge)

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

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

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

Finally, be respectful and enjoy your round!

I am a parent lay judge. This is my third year judging PF.

Please speak slowly and clearly. Clearly express your side and argument. Be polite and respectful to judges and your opponents, and display good sportsmanship.

Good afternoon students! I am looking for good premises that can strongly support your conclusions. Logical fallacies such as bias fallacy will weaken your argument so please try to minimize logical fallacies as much as possible. Throughout your argument, please make sure the premises are true and that they are strongly needed for your conclusions to stand. Also please make sure to work collaboratively with your teammates as teamwork is essential in any debate. Thank you and have fun! I look forward to judging your arguments and I know all of you will do very well!

Hi! I'm a parent judge of a Bronx Science debater. I AM A LAY JUDGE.

I am going to be flowing but PLEASE speak slow so that I can do so. Around 700ish word cases is a good speed

Email: klyellen@yahoo.com

My daughter helped me write this:

What will help me flow your side better:
Don't blip over tags.
- When Front-lining: Quickly re-explain their response and which of your contentions it is on before front-lining it.
- When Extending: Please re-explain your argument in a style that will help a layperson better understand it (it sometimes takes me hearing the argument explained more than once to completely understand it)

I will not vote off on anything said in cross but I will be listening, Explaining something well in cross could make or break whether I understand your argument in other words cross will help me better understand the arguments made in round.

I will only call for evidence if you tell me to in speech or if it is important to my decision

I will not evaluate K’s or Theory such as paraphrase or disclosure. However, If something makes you feel unsafe in the round that would normally require theory, tell me in a speech and tell me how I should evaluate it

Let me know if there are any accommodations you need, this should be a safe space for all!

Most of all Have Fun :)

Intro

My name is Charly Ying, I was a PF debater (4 years), This is my third year judging, and I appreciate debate for the art form that it is. Show me you do as well and this becomes an excellent round.

I attend Michigan State University and I study International Relations (IR) with sub-areas in environmental and economic policy.

BE ON TIME! This applies in round, time yourself, yes you can have some grace before you get up there but If I see you daddling I will move you along.

Argumentation Style

Unlike previous years I am more open to theory if you can back why you are using it over the actual topic.

Extend Arguments into later speeches!!! While it's challenging, in my opinion, to extend arguments, it makes debate easier to judge when the dust settles.

Use framework for the entire round if you decide to bring it up. Show me why it is a valid framework, how the clash occurs in round, and why I again should be looking to yours over the opponents.

(Varsity) Omission = Admission

Evidence (Truth > Technical)

This section should not have to be here, but as I read more and more into it, I want debaters to be more conscientious of the evidence used in rounds and promote ethics across the field. The procedural norm for this should be to call out an opponent's evidence and then refute that or use a counterfactual process such as postdating.

It is your job as a debater not to merely be good at performing in PF debate but to make arguments that are the most truthful.

"That does not mean science can and should be used to support any position what-
soever. Scientific evidence places limits on what is empirically plausible, and if we
are to care about evidence, those limits must be respected. (Douglas 2014)"

More examples can be found here "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics" Weingart 1999.

Also, start an email chain or card doc to make sure I get the important information! HAVE CUT CARDS I WILL CALL EVIDENCE IN ROUND it's best we both use our time effectively

Time Management

I will keep your time, but you should also keep your time to synchronize. If you go over time, I'm not flowing it, I will cross my arms and watch.

Crossfires should be utilized accordingly, don't go too far over but also don't have zero questions.

Usually, I'm fine with medium to fast speed but Do Not policy spread, we created PF to break away, not mirror policy.

Outro

Please don't hesitate to ask questions before round!

If you have read all the way through ask me before round what are the only colors for extra points.

I'm currently a university student studying Political Science at University of California - Berkeley. I started doing Public Forum in 7th grade, so I have around 8 years of experience in debate.

What I'm looking for in debate rounds:

I will definitely flow all your arguments, and the arguments I have written down on my flow will be the most important factor when I'm deciding who won the round. But more specifically, I am looking for clear, quantifiable impacts that I can consider when weighing.

If you drop an argument during your summary/final focus, I will not incorporate that into my voting issues. It is your responsibility to extend through all evidence and arguments to the very last speech if you want it to win you the round.

I was also a second speaker during my time as a high school debater, so I am looking for direct clashes to arguments in the refutation speech. I want you to directly attack the links and analysis to an argument when refuting.

In terms of speaking style, I am okay with speed, as long as it is not spreading. If you spread, especially in an online tournament, I will not be able to understand you as it is much harder to understand through a zoom call compared to an actual in-person debate.

Other than that, speak clearly and persuasively, but at the end of the day, if you have better arguments and evidence, speaking style comes second.

TL;DR 1) track prep verbally and don't mute otherwise, 2) I flow all crossfires, 3) don't waste time saying what you "don't know" about an argument, 4) in-depth extensions often aren't necessary

Oakton '20 (PF, some LD/policy/congress), JHU '24 (APDA, BP). Contact yoondebate@gmail.com for chains, Facebook or nyoon2@jh.edu otherwise. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else - I'm always open to help anyone.

1. If nobody's prep is running, stay unmuted. Your prep starts and stops when you say "start prep" and "stop prep" out loud. Keep track of time - if you go decently over, I'll verbally interrupt your team going forward. I'll verbally notify you when prep ends.
2. Be equitable and respect others, don't use gendered pronouns unless they're explicitly denoted.
3. Don't skip or ask to skip anything. I won't flow over time. Don't hold up your timer/phone/fist when you think someone's time is up.
4. I flow cross. I don't flow off docs. I don't mind "off-time roadmaps" but I won't pay attention, say what your speech will do/is doing (signpost) on-time.
5. If presuming (very rare), I flip a coin, and I don't evaluate arguments saying to presume in other ways.
6. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request, average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.

1. Don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, anything! - just don't point out the lack of something and move on. This includes claims about what I "don't know," e.g. "you don't know when/where/how much this happens," please do not say this. This part is routinely ignored!
2. Arguments are dropped if the next opposing speech doesn't interact, excluding the first two speeches. (This applies to stuff like explicitly conceding something to make a point, or reading a new theory violation, no waiting around.) I ignore "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points because they're dropped.
3. Contested (opponent directly addressed that specific claim) or weighed (you applied/compared to another argument) arguments must be extended in summary and final focus to be considered. Others don't have to be (e.g. an impact when the debate's been about links so far, "drop the debater" when both teams go for theory).

As a parent judge, I have far more admiration for, than expertise in, your craft.

I flow but am happy to be carried away by the grace of a thoughtful argument.

In my paradigm:

- clarity trumps speed;

- intelligence trumps arrogance; and

- realistic complexity trumps reductionism.

I believe that the notional precision of speaker scores, particularly at the Varsity level, is overwhelmed by the subjectivity of human judges and the lottery that is Tab.

To state the obvious in this impossible season: on-line debate is a pale, impoverished cousin of the Real Thing, as is true of so much in this pandemic. But your dedication, preparation, and passion can still shine through--just don't let the bandwidth get you down.

My sincere congratulations for participating in Yale's flagship event, and condolences if you draw me as a judge.

Thank you.

I am a lay parent judge. I prefer that debaters don’t speak too fast so that I could follow your arguments.

I will judge based upon:

1) solid logic and reasoning.

2) strong advocacy of your position.

3) utilization of evidence.

4) clear communication.