Hello Public Forum debaters!

Here is a little bit of information about me to help you in round:

(If any of the below terms are unfamiliar to you please ask me before round)

Experience

-Four years competing in Public Forum

-Two years judging Public Forum

-ISD Trained Debater

-PF Equality Summit Workshop attendee

-Well versed in debate terminology

-Well versed in theoretical arguments

-Well versed in technical arguments

-Well versed in truth arguments

-Well versed in Kritique style arguments

(All this to say anything goes as long as it is within the rules of the tournament)

Judge Preferences

- Spreading is ok, but please understand that I can’t evaluate what I can’t understand.

-I will be flowing round. I will request your flows at the end of the round as well to help me think through your win conditions.

-Truth vs Tech… Either is a winning strategy if you convince me in summary/final focus

-Be yourself - I want to see YOU debate, not your captains, coaches, or advisors. Try to be yourself and run arguments you understand well (arguments YOU wrote)

-Constructives - I as long I you are being coherent you are doing a good job

-Rebuttal - I want you to respond to as many arguments as you can, but prioritize off of truth and impacts. If something goes unresponded to it may not be the deciding factor of the round if you are winning the truth and tech elsewhere.

-Summary - Bring forward the FACTS of the round (anything that can help your side)

-Final Focus - Summarize the world in which YOU Win the round. Tell me why I should vote for you. (be sure you only talk about things brought up in summary)

-Crossfire - Have a productive, polite, and above all kind conversation. I won’t vote off crossfire, you need to bring up things that happen in crossfire in main speeches.

-Speaker Points - I will always defer to tournament rules on speaker points. In the absence of clear rules baseline speaks is 28 if fully comprehensible. I will dock points for incomprehensibility and for rude behavior. You will gain points for polite behavior and strong performance.

-This goes without saying - DO NOT base your arguments or behavior in racist, sexist, homophobic, ect thinking. This will impact how you are evaluated.

-Also goes without saying - Be polite nice people. Do not contribute to debate toxicity!

I look forward to judging your round!

Hi,

I am a judge who enjoys a good debate based on logical reasoning supported by evidence. Here are a couple things I like/do not like as a judge:

- I do not like spreading, and will only vote on a contention if it is carried throughout the entire round.

- Please be respectful, and do not yell, passion can be expressed in other ways.

With that said, I am looking forward to listening to your arguments. Good luck!!

Strath Haven '23, PF 4 years

Add me to email chain: justinbi2004@gmail.com

Standard flow judge

• Real extensions, not just "extend ____ card"
• Compare evidence
• Collapse
• Weigh please
• Cross is binding
• Limited familiarity with prog
• If you're going fast, send a doc
• Don’t steal prep, I’ll keep track
• Preflow before round if possible

Ask questions if you have any, and have fun!

* 30 year high school English and theatre teacher

* Looking for clear explanations of contentions, and rebuttals.

* Articulation and enunciation is essential.

* Cruel and profane language is NEVER acceptable.

* Be kind above all else

For email chains/evidence exchange: chancey.asher@gmail.com

I am a lay parent judge. I am looking at Contentions, Rebuttals, Extend, Impact, Weighing. Also, I am looking at your links - if you are trying to link to an impact of 8 billion lives lost because whatever this debate is about will lead to global thermonuclear war and the end of humanity, I PROBABLY won't buy it.

What is your impact, and why is it greater than your opponent's impact?

I also love clean rounds. I start to lose focus when a round gets bogged down in technical disputes.

michaeldepasquale21@gmail.com

Public Forum

Short version: collapse onto one contention in summary, weigh weigh weigh, extra speaker point for each team if you start an email chain before each round and send evidence that way. Include me on the email chain.

I did policy debate for 3 years and now am coaching public forum. With that being said, i am okay with some spreading but i need to be able to understand what your saying. Ill vote on anything, however, if your going to go for something it needs to be rebutted throughout the entire speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused its because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but i dont flow it. If I feel like theres an important point being made ill for sure write it down. Cross x is the most entertaining part of the debate, so make it entertaining. Be confident but don't be rude, theres a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow) but you need to have both in order to win the round.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

Policy

Like i mentioned in my PF paradigm, i did policy debate for 3 years and am now coaching Public Forum. I am good with anything you do. That being said, I don't know a lot about this topic. I'm cool with speed, but you have to be clear. Bottom line, ill vote for anything, as long as you give me a clear reason to vote for you at the end of the round. I consider a dropped argument a true argument.

Im not okay with shadow extending. If something gets conceded, you need to explain to me the argument, and why its important to the round. If your going to do an email chain, which id prefer, id like to be on that. My email is at the top of the paradigm.

Topicality: love T debates, i need a clear limits story. I am more willing to vote for you if theres in round abuse, but you do not have to prove an abuse story to win.

Ks: I will listen to them, but i am not great with Ks. I am not up to speed with all the k jargon. I need a clear link and alt. If you can prove at the end of the round why you won, and i think its convincing, ill vote for you. I recommend slowing down in the 2nr, especially if your going for the K.

Das: I do not buy generic links. If your going to read a politics da, you need to give me case specific links. Ill also be more than likely to vote for you if you can provide me with good and comparative impact calc.

Case Negs: I love case specific debates. Ill vote on presumption, and honestly any type of solvency takeout. I give analytical case arguments, especially if they are good, a lot of weight. Love impact turns.

Affirmative: I tend to swing aff when it comes debating against ptix disads with a bad link story. Same goes for cp solvency, and k links.

If you have any specific questions let me know and Ill be sure to answer them before the round.

I have experience in PF debate of all levels (as a debater myself) so feel free to speak at a speed that is faster than what you would normally do for parent judges. Slight caveat, while I do flow this isn’t an excuse to speak so fast you need to take 5 quick breaths in 25 seconds nor is it an excuse to believe that I will flow your arguments for you. I understand the need to collapse arguments and evidence but if you do, at least make reference to that the fact you stated that evidence (either in Summary or Final Focus). Overall, I value strong Rebuttals and 2nd Cross Fires more than anything else. 9/10 debates I judge are won or lost between the Rebuttal and the Summary. Usually I weigh on clashing impacts that still remain at the end of the debate.

I'm currently the Riparian Program Manager for an accredited land trust and environmental non-profit, Clearwater Conservancy. I previously worked for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a regulatory biologist and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an endangered Species Biologist. I'm also a Certified Ophthalmic Technician and worked alongside an ophthalmologist for several years. This is my fourth year judging public forum. I appreciate factual evidence and well supported arguments that logically back up your impact statement. Please remain respectful while debating, and speak clearly. Email for evidence sharing: jkdombroskie@gmail.com

I'm a flay parent judge. This is my second year judging PF. In high school I did speech and went to nationals in extemp. But I did not do debate. Expect me to vote on the flow. Make sure your warranting is clear. Because public forum debate is meant to be substantive and understandable to laypeople, I do not look favorably on progressive arguments or debate jargon.

Table of Contents: PF, MS Parli, Congress, Policy/LD, BQ

If you remind me, I'll give you my email in round for email chains or feedback.

Coaches: Tim Scheffler, Ben Morris

(Former) PF Partner: Sorin Caldararu

Schools: Madison West '22, Swarthmore College '26 (econ/math), judging for Strath Haven now.

Qualifications: 3 TOC gold bids in PF, doubles at TOC, won Dowling, broke 3x at Wisconsin PF State (made finals once), finals in state Congress twice, almost competed in extemp a couple of times, judged a few MSPDP and BQ rounds, judged a lot of PF rounds.

Varsity PF (JV/Novice/Middle School is Below):

TL;DR: Standard flow judge. Tech over truth but I admire appeals to truth when done well. Proud hack for evidence ethics. Below are some areas where I may deviate from circuit norms.

- Fairness > Education > Winning. Anything you do that is discriminatory will get you dropped and get your speaks tanked. PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE.

- LOCAL CIRCUIT: Disclo and parahrasing theory are not norms, so I'm going to need a pretty high bar of in-round abuse for me to justify a ballot. This is especially the case since local circuits tend to have much more extensive rules, including about evidence ethics, which could cover disclosure and paraphrasing if necessary. It is much easier to make rule changes in the local circuit. Thus, I need to know why the round, not coach meetings in the summer, should be where disclosure is made a norm.

- Now you know the wiki exists: https://opencaselist.com/hspf22. Not disclosing is now your choice. If you don't know what that means, ask me.

- If you're a small school and you're up against a team from a big prep school, I am a judge you want. I debated a lot on the national circuit, but I went to a public school that barely funds its debate program. Unlike a lot of judges who consider themselves "flow," I don't care if you use the same useless circuit buzzwords I use and I'm really not impressed by people that read 5 poorly warranted turns in rebuttal that one of their 15 coaches wrote for them in a prepout.

- If you go to a privileged school, are facing an underprivileged school, and spend the round commodifying the issues of underprivileged schools in an unnuanced disclosure/paraphrasing shell, your speaks will be capped at a 26 and I will be very tempted to drop you for it. If your entire strategy for winning rounds is to weigh extinction impacts over everything else, your speaks will be capped at a 28.5 unless you present some type of interesting nuance in the weighing debate. If I have to flow you off a speech doc, your speaks are capped at 28.5.

- I don't care if you provide an "alternative" in framework/theory debates (you need one in K’s though). I don't think second case ever needs to interact with first case, even in progressive debate.

- I reserve the right to intervene if I dislike your theory. That said, prefiat impacts almost always outweigh postfiat impacts. If prefiat debate is initiated, generally we're not gonna be debating substance. That doesn't make theory abusive – if you hit theory you can win by responding to it.

- Norms that DEFINITELY should be enforced through the ballot: not being ___ist, not misrepresenting evidence, not being rude. Norms that should be enforced through the ballot: disclosure, having cut cards, being able to share evidence efficiently, not stealing prep time, trigger warnings. Norm that should be encouraged through word of mouth but not the ballot: reading cards.

- Weighing should be done early. Don't wait until final focus. Metaweigh, too.

- Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. No sticky defense.

- I don't flow author names.

- Collapse early. To that end, don't read a whole new contention in rebuttal for no reason.

- If I have no offense on the flow, I default to the team that would win if I were a lay judge.

- You can ask me to call for evidence (from your side or your opponents' side) after the round in one of your speeches (or cross-ex if that floats your boat). I will probably not remember. After the round, say "remember when I asked you to look at the Caldararu card?" and I will look at it.

- Don’t misrepresent who wrote your evidence. If the article comes from the opinion section or is an academic study, you cannot cite it solely by institution. The New York Times does not publicly agree or disagree with what Ross Douthat or Bret Stephens writes for them (and I’m sure it would often vehemently disagree, as would I), so citing his op-eds by saying “the New York Times says...” is incorrect. You should say "Douthat of the New York Times says..." or "Douthat says..."

- "If you pronounce “Reuters” as 'rooters' or "nuclear" as 'nook-you-ler' I will be sad." –Sorin Caldararu, my brilliant debate partner.

- I'm going to Swarthmore College (one of the most left-leaning colleges in America), I live in Madison, Wisconsin (one of the most left-leaning cities in America), and my debate coach was a civil rights lawyer. This should give you a sense of my political views.

---

JV/Novice/Middle School Paradigm:

I have judged some Middle School Parliamentary rounds before, and I have a lot of experience in novice/JV public forum.

- There are essentially three parts of debating: making arguments, responding to arguments, and weighing arguments (i.e. comparing your arguments and with those of your opponent). Ideally, you should start by mostly making arguments, and by the end you should mostly be weighing arguments that have already been made. You can make that very clear to me by saying things like "now I'm going to respond to my opponent's argument about ______."

- An argument usually has to involve saying something will cause something else. Say we're debating whether the government should create a single-payer healthcare system. If you are on the proposition, saying "healthcare is a right" isn't really an argument. Rather, it's a catchphrase that hints at a different argument: by making healthcare single-payer, the cost doesn't change whether you go to the doctor or not, making people more likely to get care that improves their quality of life and could even save lives. The difference between the first argument and the second is pretty subtle, but it's important for me as a judge: saying "healthcare is a right" doesn't tell me how single-payer gets people healthcare, and it also doesn't tell me who I'm actually helping by voting in favor of single-payer. The second argument answers those questions and puts those answers front and center. And that makes it much easier for me, as a judge, to vote for you.

- To that end, I'm not a fan of new arguments in late speeches. It makes the debate feel like whack-a-mole: a team makes one argument, but once it's rebutted, they present another argument, which then gets rebutted, and so on.

- Generally, I find logic to be more compelling than moral grandstanding. For example, if we're debating if it should be legal to feed kids McDonalds and you argue that it shouldn't because McDonalds is unhealthy, it doesn't help to say stuff like "they're basically stepping over the bodies of dead children" in a speech. It sounds like overkill and makes me not want to vote for you as much.

- Tell me your favorite animal to show me you've read this for an extra speaker point. The WDCA hates fun, so I sadly cannot give you your extra speaker point if you are in Wisconsin.

---

Congress:

Short and sweet:

- I probably would rather judge PF. Try to change my mind. (just kidding)

- I was a huge fan of really weird yet hilarious intros, and had one for just about every speech freshman year. It was then squeezed out of me by a combination of tremendous willpower and coaching. (I once said that Saudi Arabia was acting like Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes).

- Don’t re-word a speech someone else just gave two minutes ago.

- I shouldn’t be able to tell if you have a background in policy or PF debate. Don’t speak like you would in a PF or policy round.

- If you give a late-cycle speech, you should have something valuable to say. If you don’t have something valuable to say, don’t speak.

- You should vote to call the question, but not if it will prevent someone who needs to speak from speaking. Basically, if you are bored of debating a given bill, call the question. If you believe that calling the question would be a good underhand ploy to prevent somebody from speaking, don't call the question.

- Don’t speak right after someone spoke on your side, unless you absolutely have to (you probably don't have to).

- Don’t use precedence/recency to give the first pro speech if the writer of the bill is in the chamber and wants to speak. I have no idea if writing a bill allows you to give the first pro speech regardless of precedence and recency, but that should be a rule. This should give you an indication of my level of experience with Congress.

---

Policy/LD: If I am judging you in policy or LD, I might have a slight bias towards a more PF style of debate. Read my PF paradigm since most things will apply. I find the ideas and concepts in policy and LD interesting and worthwhile even though I'm not inclined to participate in those styles of debate. Just keep it under 300wpm, use PF-level lingo, and keep in mind I can flow spreading but I can't flow it as well as an actual policy or LD debater. I'm probably more down for progressive debate than most PF judges, especially in those events. I know I can be a hard judge to adapt to for circuit policy and LD, so I'll cut you some slack with speed and clear you like 10 times before I stop trying to flow.

---

BQ:

I judge BQ exactly like I judge PF, but obviously framework matters more because it's philosophy. Just read the PF section. It all applies.

PF:

• I like seeing logical arguments with clear lines of reasoning. I should require no background knowledge to follow you through your speech.
• New, creative arguments are highly encouraged to be mixed in as long as they are well supported
• Ad hominem will not be tolerated
• Debate theory, if applied, should still tie back to the resolution
• NO SPEED DEBATING - Your job is to communicate your argument to me in a way I can understand. If I have to be emailed a copy of your speech just to know what you're saying then you haven't done your job.
• Presentation is important. PF tends to get a pass on that but as the saying goes "it's not what you say, it's how you say it."

English Teacher at J.R. Masterman School. What I look for is a strong argumentative presence and addressing the other team's responses in detailed, impassioned rebuttals.

I was a PF debater (JR Masterman 2018-22)and personally I feel like the most important thing about debate is having fun.

Off the bat I will say it has been a while since I have been in the debate space, so do with that information what you will.

Loop me into the email chains rkeenan413@gmail.com

I won't read evidence unless I'm specifically asked to look at it or it is a major decider in the round.

Respect/safety.

I do not tolerate any rudeness, sexism, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, etc. If I sense this it will reflect poorly on you (speaks, dropped, etc.)

It is key that everyone is comfortable in debate, I think trigger warnings are important to the round, if you think your case may or may not need a trigger warning, run one. If I feel as though there should have been one and there was not it will hurt your round. In addition, if you feel uncomfortable mid-round please feel free to stop/pause the round and we will go from there.

Debate is fun and is supposed to be a safe space for you, I want to ensure that.

Speech preferences:

-Collapse!! It is easier for me and you if you do this.

-Please weigh in your earlier speeches in addition to rebuttals and frontlines.

- I can handle and understand speed but if you know you're going to spread please send me the speech doc.

Crossfire:

I will not flow cross, so if something important comes up bring it up in speech.

Feel free to make jokes and be laid back in cross. Make it entertaining and have fun with it.

Progressive debate

I love progressive debate, I might not understand all theories or K's but please if you want to run them go for it.

Extra speaker points:

+1 if you can incorporate Bladee (song title/lyrics) into your speech

I’m a parent volunteer judge, have judged Speech and PF, LD debate for several years, but I am new to Congressional and Policy debate.

Your performance will be assessed based on what your deliver and how you deliver. I am a scientist, I like straightforward, well developed and evidence supported contentions and arguments. I appreciate spot on rebuttals and effective debates. I don't judge if your arguments are right or wrong, I vote for the team who is more convincible based on your defense and offense.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. It is your responsibility to challenge the evidence provided by your opponents. I don't do fact check for you.

Please speak at an understandable pace (no spreading!). If you're speaking too quickly, I may not be able to flow, and you may at the risk of losing those arguments.

In your final speech, please clearly state the reasons why you think your should win.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Public Forum

Decorum: Be respectful to your opponent. Any racism, sexism, etc., will not be tolerated.

Content Warnings: If you are reading a case regarding sexual assault, human trafficking, mental health, etc. I’d like you to have a content warning before the round starts.

Timing: I’ll be watching the time but don’t rely on me to keep it for you.

Off- time roadmaps: No preference.

Summary: Don’t introduce new arguments after first summary.

Warrants: Especially in novice PF, explain why your card supports your case. No matter how explicit your card may be, flesh it out to explain why this supports your contention. I really don’t like spreading.

Final Focus: I take into consideration things said during FF, but don’t simply yell over your opponent. Talking fast and speaking loudly does not equate in a good argument.

Email: adamlieb24@gmail.com

Intro/Affiliations

Email: zachlim804@gmail.com

- Former student at New Trier HS (2015-2019) and the University of Pittsburgh (2019-2022).

- Experience: 6 years as a policy debater, no TOC bids, & NDT doubles (NDT '21) in college. I have been coaching for 2 years and judging for 4 years, albeit the past year and a half has been PF heavy.

**PF Stuff at the bottom

Online Debate

Cameras on preferably, slow down, and I don't know why this happens but wait until you know 100% that I am present before you give an order or start your speech. A black screen with my name means I am not there/ready unless I say otherwise.

Important/Relevant Thoughts

- For this specific topic, I am not familiar with the trends and arguments being made on the circuit, specifically the subsets, but I am knowledgeable on NATO as an organization from a previous college topic.

- My experience is policy-heavy, but in college, I strayed away from strict policy debating to more critical debating on both sides, mostly reading iterations of racial security and racial capitalism kritiks and critical affs with a plan. I am most comfortable adjudicating DA v. case, CP/DA v. case, and K v. case; it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.

- I find debate enjoyable and I truly appreciated judges who gave a full effort in paying attention and offering an understandable RFD so I will attempt to emulate that in every round that I judge. With that, the best thing you can do for yourself is, up to you how you go about this, to orient your debating around "making my job easy". Whether you lean critical or policy, be more reliant on explanation and spin rather than being solely reliant on what your evidence says. Show me the big picture and within that picture, point out any fine details that are important for me to evaluate. Be explicit, get straight to the point, and avoid unnecessary speak/fillers. Judge instruction is key.

- A judge is never going to be unbiased when listening to different types of arguments. However, pre-conceptions are malleable and good debating (lbl, explanation, etc.) can supersede argument bias, but given my varying degrees of knowledge/expertise in different arguments, adaptation will matter in how "good debating" is performed in round.

- Continuity in argumentation and explanation will be scrutinized. Having been on both sides as a 2N and 2A, I believe many final rebuttals get away with a lot of new spin/explanation, so as I have throughout judging debates, I will hold a higher standard for extensions and such.

- Absolutely do not read morally reprehensible arguments such as death good, racism good, homophobia good, etc. There is no room for that in debates, and it is not courteous to your judge or opponents. You will be dropped and receive a zero.

- The link below will take you to a doc that I wrote many years ago, containing specific thoughts I have about specific types of arguments. I honestly do not think it's as relevant as it was when I was a first year out, but if you aren't familiar with what I think of certain arguments, then feel free to check it out to gain some more clarity. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d5pO-KRsf90F5Y-9Hfc1RlzRxsu21KCSxV9aVZFcRH0/edit?usp=sharing

- Don't hesitate to ask me any questions about my college debate experience as well as my time at Pitt. Feel free to email me or ask after the round!

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

Public Forum

I am a flow-centric judge on the condition your arguments are backed with evidence and are logical. My background is in policy debate, but regardless of style, and especially important in PF, I think it's necessary to craft a broad story that connects what the issue is, what your solution is, and why you think you should win the debate.

I like evidence qualification comparisons and "if this, then that" statements when tied together with logical assumptions that can be made. Demonstrating ethos, confidence, and good command of your and your opponent's arguments is also very important in getting my ballot.

I will like listening to you more if you read smart, innovative arguments. Don't be rude, cocky, and/or overly aggressive especially if your debating and arguments can't back up that "talk". Not a good look.

Give an order before your speech

I expect all competitors to be respectful to each other with good understanding of the format and order of debate. I judge based on logic, flow, and strength of evidence provided. I aim to be fair and respectful towards all teams and competitors.

I expect competitors tobe clear and concise. Try not to use any debate jargon or highly sophisticated wording. Maintain a good pace and do not go too fast. Be polite to the opponents.

As a judge, I believe clarity in reasoning, solid rationale and quality of evidence, and showing respect to your peers are hallmarks of good debates and speech. So take a breath, slow down, and put your best foot forward. Learn and enjoy your experience!

Moving past the many specific definitions, I would say this about criteria: logic, facts, evidence, and clear delivery seem to be the stronger approaches to prevailing in a debate. A sound argument with some relevant evidence may often be more convincing, versus many words, however articulately spoken.

While the articulate may have a seeming advantage, quality & logic of the argument, together with some examples & evidence, might be the stronger approach.

Advice that may assist some people: Where it is possible, try to speak clearly and loudly. Older Judges, with perhaps poorer hearing, will appreciate the effort. Thank you for participating!

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.

TLDR:

email for chains or whatever you may need: etrinh1@swarthmore.edu

-- I will drop you if I think you're being seriously inequitable with malicious intentions.

-- Default to speaker position/team if you don't know your opponent's pronouns (ie, the first neg speaker told us this, aff tries to tell you that, etc).

-- cards with warrants > warrants > cards without warrants (I like logic. Give me the logic and reasoning of your arguments and cards).

-- If you want me to actually evaluate the warranting of a card, then I need you to actually physically say the warranting of the card. I won't accept someone just citing a card and explaining the impacts of the card but not explaining the why or the how.

-- please weigh <3 i start most of my ballots w/ the weighed stuff

-- College debater with no HS debate experience

-- Tabula rasa (I won't fill in warranting, impacting, and weighing for you)

-- Don't communicate with your partner while they're speaking. Whispering/giving notes is fine.

-- Okay with speed, not spreading.

-- Tech over truth 95%-99% of the time.

-- Time yourselves.

-- I only evaluate the flow. I don't care about presentation.

-- cross is goofy. I half-flow cross, cross is generally binding but if you say something in cross you need to say it in a speech for me to credit it.

-- I kind of know how theory and K's work, but not the norms. Education > Fairness, and tell me the violation and punishment pls <3

-- Have the round that you want to have. Do what you need to do to win.

Hi everyone! I'm Eric Trinh (he/him) and currently a fourth year APDA (American Parliamentary) debater for Swarthmore College. I also have some experience in BP (British Parliamentary). I have no experience in high school debate, but I have judged a lot in APDA and BP. I'm going to split this in a couple parts: First, my priors, and some normal paradigm stuff.

As a disclaimer, this paradigm is a vague sense of how I view debate. There may be times where I deviate from my paradigm. If I deviate from my paradigm and I realize I do, I'll make a note of it in my call.

Judge Priors:

1. I'm not used to cards or evidence. I will consider cards, but I will consider warranting and weighing a lot more. Card with a warrant > Warranting > Card without a warrant. If you want me to actually evaluate the warranting of a card, then I need you to actually physically say the warranting of the card. For example, if someone tells me in a speech "it's purple because of the purple properties, as Ross argues," then I will say there's no warranting, even if the team gives me the card. However, if someone tells me "It's purple because blue and red make blue, as Ross argues," then I will credit the argument more.
2. I'm bad at flowing spread. I'm okay with fast speakers, but I wouldn't recommend spreading in front of me.
3. I look at the flow for the most important weighed issue in the round, and I give the win to whoever is winning that issue. If that's a wash, I move on the next weighed issue. If there are no more weighed issues, then I look at unweighed issues based on implicit weighing first, and then just strength of argument. I will do my best to not fill in any warranting, weighing, or impacting for you. The better you weigh, the less I'll intervene.
4. Also, speaking of tabula rasa, if there's a point on the flow that's sitting there that's unwarranted or barely warranted and the other team doesn't push back on it at all, I normally don't throw it away and just say it's true for the round.

Debate Stuff:

Great, with that out of the way, let's get into some other stuff that I think also applies to this format:

Firstly, I am tech > truth (if a team says the sky is purple, and it's not properly contested, then the sky is purple for the round). I sometimes veer into truth, but I think it’s like maybe 5% of the time on really really really clear and obvious things. I mostly judge though accepting whatever you throw at me. I, however, am more than happy to throw away arguments that I deem to be inequitable.

I'm scared of cross, I still don't get how cross works, and I don't think I like cross. Regardless, cross is generally binding, but if you say something in cross, you're going to have to tell me in a speech for me to throw it on my flow. I flow cross a little.

Judge adaptation is important in debate, but also I think judges should do their best to adapt to the round that the debaters want to have. Do what you need to do to win in front of me; I'll live.

I'll probably be looking at my computer most of the time (unless I'm trying to read your lips/better hear you if you're speaking faster), so I likely won't see what you're doing. I don't care about style or presentation of your arguments (although obviously good organization is helpful for me; I won't directly deduct/raise speaks for organization). I only care about the logic and the strength of your arguments.

Please time yourselves, although I will also be timing you.

Please don't communicate with your partner while your partner is actively giving a speech. I don't care what you do while y'all aren't speaking as long as you're respectful to everyone (whispering/talking quietly/giving notes/google doc typing/whatever is okay, as long I can still hear the speaker and it isn't distracting to the speaker).

Please give me clear voters; don't make me have to do more work!

Default to speaker position/team if you don't know your opponent's pronouns (ie, the first speaker told us this, aff tries to tell you that, etc). I will drop you if I think you're being seriously inequitable with malicious intent.

I don't care about what you're wearing when you debate. Feel free to take off your tie or shoes or something if you're uncomfortable.

offtime roadmaps are fine, just be quick.

Theory (idk, feel free to scroll on if you're not expecting much theory):

I'm not a big theory debater. I do vaguely understand theory, but I don't understand K's as well as I understand general theory. Please handhold me through it, especially for K's -- Give me the standard, violation, punishment, reasons for punishment, and voters plus weighing. With that being said, I also definitely don't know the standard theory shells in PF, so you're going to have to handhold me.

My defaults: RVIs don't exist until you tell me it does. Fairness and education are voters, and education > fairness. I don't have a default punishment. If you don't tell me what I should do in order to punish a team, then I can't do anything with the theory (do I throw away an argument? Do I drop the team? Do I do some other strange punishment? Tell me!). Of course, all of these defaults can be argued away through a round, it’s just this is what happens if I don’t hear arguments.

If you have any questions, feel free to email me or ask me before the round begins. Happy debating!