I am a lay parent judge. Please be organized in your presentation -- I like solid arguments articulated clearly. Please don't talk too fast, mumble, speak softly, or do anything that would make it harder for me to follow -- give me a clear way to vote for you. I may ask for cards at the end.

Be civil: if you use foul language, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.

Be considerate: If you ask a question in crossfire, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear two sides - it wouldn't be a debate otherwise.

I look forward to hearing all of your presentations -- have fun!

I am a parent judge and judged mostly PF since 2020 including some TOC bid tournaments this year. But please strike me if you don’t want deal with lay judge

1) I am OK with above average speed but please don’t speak too fast

2) Key points clear and well supported

3) Make good and logical arguments

4) Be respectful to your opponents and try to not interrupt too much during crossfire.

Have fun and good luck!

I am a Johns Creek 2016 graduate currently teaching at St. Pius Catholic High School. I have debated policy and LD but also have experience coaching PF. I went to camp all four years of high school and competed in the national circuit in high school (2012-2016).

In LD/PF: I am able to follow speed reading pretty well. I have experience with a wide variety of arguments, from very policy oriented to more values/philosophical based arguments.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain - shabbirmbohri@gmail.com. Label email chains with the tournament, round, and both teams. Send DOCS, not your excessively paraphrased case + 55 cards in the email chain.

I debated 3 years of PF at Coppell High School. I am now a Public Forum Coach at the Quarry Lane School.

Standing Conflicts: Coppell, Quarry Lane

If there are 5 things to take from my paradigm, here they are:

1. Read what you want. Don't change your year-long strategies for what I may or may not like - assuming the argument is not outright offensive, I will evaluate it. My paradigm gives my preferences on each argument, but you should debate the way you are most comfortable with.

2. Send speech docs. I mean this - Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for ANY tournament in a Varsity division if you are not at a minimum sending constructive with cards. If you paraphrase, send what you read and the cards. Send word docs or google docs, not 100 cards in 12 separate emails. +0.2 speaks for rebuttal docs as well.

3. Don't lie about evidence. I've seen enough shitty evidence this year to feel comfortable intervening on egregiously bad evidence ethics. I won't call for evidence unless the round feel impossible to decide or I have been told to call for evidence, but if it is heavily misconstrued, you will lose.

4. Be respectful. This should be a safe space to read the arguments you enjoy. If someone if offensive or violent in any way, the round will be stopped and you will lose.

5. Extend, warrant, weigh. Applicable to whatever event you're in - easiest way to win any argument is to do these 3 things better than the other team and you'll win my ballot.

Online Debate Update:

Establish a method for evidence exchange PRIOR to the start of the round, NOT before first crossfire. Cameras on at all times. Here's how I'll let you steal prep - if your opponents take more than 2 minutes to search for, compile, and send evidence, I'll stop caring if you steal prep in front of me. This should encourage both teams to send evidence quickly.

PF Overview:

All arguments should be responded to in the next speech outside of 1st constructive. If is isn't, the argument is dropped. Theory, framing, ROBs are the exception to this as they have to be responded to in the next speech.

Every argument in final focus should be warranted, extended, and weighed in summary/FF to win you the round. Missing any one of these 3 components is likely to lose you the round. Frontlining in 2nd rebuttal is required. I don't get the whole "frontline offense but not defense" - collapse, frontline the argument, and move on. Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want in the ballot in summary, including dropped defense.

Theory: I believe that disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad. I will not hack for these arguments, but these are my personal beliefs that will influence my decision if there is absolutely no objective way for me to choose a winner. I will vote on paraphrasing good, but your speaks will get nuked. I think trigger warnings are bad. The use of them in PF have almost always been to allow a team to avoid interacting with important issues in round because they are afraid of losing, and the amount of censorship of those arguments I've seen because of trigger warnings has led me to this conclusion. I will vote on trigger warning theory if there is an objectively graphic description of something that is widely considered triggering, and there is no attempt to increase safety for the competitors by the team reading it, but other than that I do not see myself voting on this shell often.

I think RVI's are good in PF when teams kick theory. Otherwise, you should 100% read a counter-interp. Reasonability is too difficult to adjudicate in my experience, and I prefer an interp v CI debate.

K's/Non-Topical Positions: There are dozens of these, and I hardly know 3-4. However, as with any other argument, explain it well and prove why it means you should win. I expect there to be distinct ROBs I can evaluate/compare, and if you are reading a K you should delineate for me whether you are linking to the resolution (IMF is bad b/c it is a racist institution) OR your opponents link to the position (they securitized Russia). I think K's should give your opponent's a chance to win - I will NOT evaluate "they cannot link in" or "we win b/c we read the argument first".

I will boost speaks if you disclose (+0.1), read cut cards in rebuttal (+0.2), and do not take over 2 mins to compile and send evidence (+0.1).

Ask me in round for questions about my paradigm, and feel free to ask me questions after round as well.

Background:

My background is in public forum. I competed all throughout high school on the national circuit and local circuit in Georgia. Currently, I am the President of the New Haven Urban Debate League and coach parliamentary debate at Yale.

PF Paradigm:

WEIGHING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU WILL EVER DO IN DEBATE! IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWING YOUR OWN NAME!! PLS WEIGH.

If you don’t weigh, I’ll have to resort to my own weighing mechanism, which may be different every round depending on my mood. You don’t want that, so pls for the love of god, make my life and yours easier by weighing. It’s the easiest way to my ballot.

Other stuff:

-I can handle 250 words/minute. Go over, well...your arguments might not make it on my flow.

-I don't expect the first speaking team to extend defense in summary. However, you need to respond to turns. Second speaking teams need to extend defense and respond to turns.

-Second speaking team should TRY to respond to turns in rebuttal.

-Voters in final focus should be mentioned in summary.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything.

-I don't weigh anything in cross in terms of the ballot, so bring it up in speeches if there's something important.

Parli Paradigm:

I'm familiar with East Coast parli. I don't do well with theory, so I might not understand it. You can try it, but you still must interact with your opponents' arguments. The way to my ballot is by weighing. You don't need to go for everything at the end of the debate, but you should still respond to opponents' arguments and not extend through ink! Break the last speech into voters and weigh!

Other points (very similar to my paradigm for PF, so take that for what you will):

-Because you're not using evidence, please maintain a 200 word/minute maximum.

-Rebuttals should not be in the final speech. I believe that your rebuttals, at the very minimum, should begin in the member speeches. This allows for final interactions in the final speech between the two sides, and this avoids the idea of "no new arguments in the last speech."

-No tag teaming.

-If your links don’t logically make sense, I’m probably not going to buy it, so warrant everything. If I don't buy it, I will most likely not vote for it...

-Do not extend through ink! Conceded arguments are arguments that were poorly responded to or not at all; to which, you can extend, but if your opponents provide multiple warrants/responses to the argument, you must also respond to the rebuttals.

If you have any questions, please ask in rounds or after by emailing me at mary.chen@yale.edu

Son writing for dad.

What he said: He's a lay judge. He doesn't like when you lie. He is pretty rational and logical. He loves truth.

What I'll say: Go slow, be logical, he values morals, and has knowledge on the economy and finance.

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 !

Please treat me like a lay judge.

I will vote on arguments I find more persuasive

Background - PhD in science and engineering (materials, chemical)

Debate judge for a few years - judged middle school and high school debates

I will flow the round

For me:

tech > truth

clear/structured > compiling/spreading

cards/logic reasoning > buzz words/waving hands

Public speaking > screen reading

Respect to other team > aggressive

Get permission first > say sorry later

I value clear and concise arguments and responses with strong cards or logic reasoning. Compiling/spreading is not encouraged.

If your opponent wins one link in a link chain, then you can not use your impact. Make sure that the links are for your side in order for your impact to stand.

Make sure that your impacts are clearly stated. I do not want to guess what your impact is. Tell me what it is clearly.

If you give me a framework, tell me why the framework should be there. Explain why the framework works in the resolution and why the framework will benefit the round.

I will not view what you say in cross-fire for the actual debate unless the point is brought up in speeches.

In rebuttal, if you are planning to respond, give me clear signposting on what your response is. Don't just repeat your contentions again as that is not responding to what your opponent is saying.

Make sure you extend your contentions throughout the debate. In summary, you should extend your contentions and collapse if you want. I want weighing in summary on the impacts. Tell me why your impact is more important than the opponents' impact.

I value probability > magnitude and scope. If something will not happen, then there is no magnitude or scope. Make sure you prove that your impact has a probable chance.

I want voting issues in final focus to help me understand your main arguments. Tell me what is important in final focus so I know what to judge off of.

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, 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.

If you're running an email chain, please add me: Andrewgollner@gmail.com

he/him

About me: I debated one year of PF and three years of policy at Sequoyah High, and I debated three year of college policy at the University of Georgia. I was a 2N that generally runs policy offcase positions but, especially earlier in my debate career, I ran many critical positions. I'll try to be expressive during the round so that you can discern how I am receiving your arguments.

Judge Preferences: On a personal level, please be kind to your opponents. I dislike it when a team is unnecessarily rude or unsportsmanlike. I am completely willing to discuss my decision about a round in between rounds, so please ask me if you want me to clarify my decision or would like advice. You can email me any questions you have.

FOR PF/LD:

I am primarily a policy judge. This means

1. I am more comfortable with a faster pace. While I don't like the idea of spreading in PF and LD I can handle a faster pace.

2. I am decently technical. If an argument is dropped point it out, make sure I can draw a clean line through your speeches.

3. I am less used to theory backgrounds in your form of debate, slow down and explain these.

4. Ask me any specific questions you have.

FOR POLICY:

I recognize that my role is to serve as a neutral arbiter without predispositions towards certain arguments, but as this goal is elusive the following are my gut reactions to positions. I strive to ensure that any position (within reason, obviously not obscene or offensive) is a possible path to victory in front of myself.

CP: I love a well written CP which is tailored to your opponent's solvency advocate and that can be clearly explained and is substantiated by credible evidence. If your CP is supported by 1AC solvency evidence, I will be very impressed. Generic CPs are fine, I've read a ton of them, but the more you can at least explain your CP in the context of the affirmative's advantages the more likely you are to solve for their impact scenarios.

DA: Make sure to give a quick overview of the story during the neg block to clarify the intricacies of your position. If, instead of vaguely tagline making a turns case arg like "climate turns econ, resource shortages", you either read and later extend a piece of evidence or spend 10 to 15 seconds analytically creating a story of how climate change exasperates resource shortages and causes mass migrations which strain nation's financial systems, then I will lend far more risk to the disadvantage turning the case. Obviously the same goes for Aff turns the DA. I will also weigh smart analytical arguments on the disad if the negative fails to contest it properly. I'm also very persuaded when teams contest the warrants of their opponents evidence or point out flaws within their opponents evidence, whether it's a hidden contradiction or an unqualified author.

T: I've rarely gone for topicality but I have become increasingly cognizant of incidents in which I likely should have. My gut reaction is that competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, but I have personally seen many affirmatives which stray far enough from the topic to warrant a debate centered over the resolution in that instance.

K: I used to run Ks pretty frequently in high school but I run them far less frequently now. I'm likely not deep in your literature base so be sure to explain your position and your link story clearly.

FW: My gut feeling is that debate is a game and that it should be fair, but I have seen many rounds where the affirmative team has done an excellent job of comparing the pedagogy of both models and won that their model is key for X type of education or accessibility there of. However, I am persuaded that a TVA only needs to provide reasonable inroads to the affirmatives research without necessarily having to actually solve for all of the affirmative. I do find the response that negs would only read DAs and ignore/"outweigh" the case to be effective - try to add some nuance to this question of why negs would or wouldn't still need to grapple with the case.

Non-traditional Aff: I've always run affs with USFG plan texts, but that doesn't mean that these positions are non-starters. I will be much more receptive to your affirmative if it is intricately tied to the topic area, even if it does refuse to engage the resolution itself for whichever reasons you provide.

Theory: I generally think 2 condo is good, more than that and things start to get a bit iffy.

Most importantly, please be kind to your opponents and have a good time.

Hey, I did PF for four years back in high school. I'm now a sophomore at Georgia Tech studying Computer Science you can ask about that if you want. I am perfectly fine with speed. Don't give off-time road maps, they just aren't helpful in my opinion. I will call for evidence if certain cards are heavily debated in round. I try to disclose if I can do it in a timely manner, but if the round is super messy I might not disclose. If you have any questions, please ask. Be respectful and have fun.

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.

I am a 2nd year at Georgia Tech (Go Yackets!) studying civil engineering and sustainability. I debated VPF for three years in both the Georgia and National circuits and was part of the State Championship team while at Carrollton (2021 & 2022).

I prefer for the teams to share all cases and called evidence into one email chain started before the round. email: andrew.herndon17@gmail.com

Timing- I will time and expect you to do the same

Speed- No spreading no problem

Ev- I view debate as an essential activity for developing skillsets and tools to find the truth, simply don't lie intentionally or otherwise. Your evidence should be reputable, reasonable, relevant, and most importantly: extended. That is obvious. However, If it is bad evidence, it is still up to your opponent to prove that to me. I am a tech judge, and the "game" of debate is won by extending winning arguments and strategically dismantling your opponents' shakiest evidence.

CX- Debate IS clash; I do flow CX out of interest but all arguments and responses should be briefly reiterated your in speeches.

Collapsing - Extend the most contentions you can into the later rounds, I allow lots of collapsing but (hopefully) you wrote multiple contentions to argue them, not to cut potential losses in the round.

Theory- I have a pretty solid threshold for theory and have some competitive experience with it. I don’t think that a formal counterinterp is necessary to respond to a shell, just give responses like you would a normal argument. If it's frivolous and the opposing team indicts that, I will drop you and play Tetris on my laptop. Yes, FW and Ks can be harmful to you, teams that are abusive with the them to make a debate about a non-resolutional (non-resolvable) issue are not likely to get voted up. But, you can run them if they stay within the broader themes of your contentions.

Weighing- As early as possible. This said, weighing should not just be "we outweigh on magnitude/probability/scope/whatever other debate jargon you throw at me". Give me analyses as to why you're winning the round, which should be adequate.

Frontline- 2nd Rebuttal onwards. Nothing new should be read 2nd summary onward.

Signposting- Good debaters are good at signposting.

Comedy- The best debaters are able to make it fun... and get higher speaks

I am a TECH judge. If it's not on the flow I won't take it into consideration. Make your arguments and nuances explicit and tell me throughout the entire round, doubly so for prime links and accessed impacts.

Best of luck

I am an erstwhile LD/PF debater, and I have been called back to be a judge in this crazy world. Online debating and judging is new for most of us, but I am eager to assist in making this situation more normal-crazy than crazy-crazy. And if we are at a live, real, honest-to-God in-person tournament, then I promise you that the crazy ain't just in the internet: Here, There Be Dragons. I wish you the best of luck and skill as you debate this year!

Email for evidence chains and whatnot: will.hobson911@gmail.com

Ultra Important Ground Rules

In 85% of things, I am a laid-back and low maintenance judge, but I do have a few nonnegotiable rules that must be followed in order to have a fair and fun matchup. These should be common sense, but god knows common sense is less common than it should be.

-Courtesy is the most important thing I consider in rounds. If you do not treat your opponent with respect, chances are that I will not respect you on the ballot. If anyone harms the integrity of the round by being discriminatory, rude, or unprofessional, I will immediately stop the round. You do not have to like your opponent, but you should at least pretend to do so for about an hour. If you have a legitimate problem with the other team, please bring up your concerns before the final focus or final segment.

-Given the circumstances of having to rely on technology for some tournaments, tech problems are not rare. If you have had troubles with connections or hardware, please let me know beforehand so we don't have to trouble shoot problems during the round.

PF/LD Preferences

-Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not spread (i.e. speed-read). I will not be able to understand you, and that's gonna be rough, buddy. If for some reason you must, I will require you to drop your case in the file share for mine and your opponent's benefit so we can at least try to follow your barrage.

-Concision and clarity are key. If I can not follow your arguments or identify your contentions, links, or impacts in my flow, I will probably assume that you are being willfully obtuse which is not a good look. Reminder: Neither PF nor LD debate is about proving that you are the smartest person in the room or showing me that you have the best words; it is about proving that you have the most cogent and sensible argument. This is about communication, not obfuscation.

-Do not, do not, do not introduce new contentions in rebuttals, summaries, or final focuses. That is called playing dirty. Likewise, please refrain from introducing new constructive evidence in the last half of the debate round; defending evidence is still admissible and is encouraged.

-Nuclear Stuff (PF): I know every debater and their mother likes LOVES to throw in nuclear war as the ultimate harm or impact for either their case or rebuttal, so much so that it has become a meme of sorts. I find this to be an exceptionally tiring thing to listen to as a judge. Nuclear war is such a complex, and more importantly a serious and severe topic that using it frivolously in a debate comes across as childish at best, and cynical at worst. Trivially connecting the incomprehensible Horrors of nuclear war with a topic like urban development or cryptocurrency just comes across as intentional malpractice. If your topic justifiably includes nuclear war as an impact, I will need an iron clad link chain and evidence connecting the two, more than just asking me to assume that it will happen. Be professional. (I apologize for my rant and the irritation shown in it).

-I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.

-If you do plan on running a K argument, please let me know before the round starts. If you are, I will probably require you to drop your case in the file share or evidence chain for the benefit of myself and the other team. Likewise, theory arguments are cool (really!), but they must be constructed in a clear and cogent manner. I should not have to work to understand what you are saying.

-Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment. That ain't debate, friend-o.

-Don't assume that I am a genius. Signpost your contentions and your cards, if possible.

I am a Lay Judge. Please speak slowly and clearly during the round. My speaker point range is from 27.5-30. Be respectful in the round and have fun.

Main Paradigm

questions/email chain - jordant2debate@gmail.com

You do you; I do not care. Any style of debating is on the table as long as there is clash and respect.

I will vote on pretty much anything, as long as it is warranted and packaged well.

The following are just random thoughts.

Policy:

You are not allowed to send more than three cards in the body of the email.

Theory: I will not judge kick. Multiple conditional planks on the same cp are very bad to me. All other theory depends on the flow. I am in favor of multiple conditional alternatives as long as there is no contradiction.

T:Love me some T debates. The neg should provide an explanation of the topic and clearly define how the affirmative justifies unfair/unpreppable affs. The neg should also provide a clear vision of topical ground with possible affs that could be read under aff's interp. The aff should provide a defense of how their plan text can be reasonably debated within the boundaries of the topic itself even if it might be outside the lit base.

K stuff:

Planless affs should respond to the resolution, even if you say no.

The k should link to the aff.

I am very sympathetic to presumption in a lot of these debates, and under-explained or confusing alts/solvency mechanisms are not going to go well with me. When on the neg, critical teams should highlight specific examples of the problematic philosophy/worldview that manifested in the 1AC. I also need strong arguments for why your argument matters in this scholastic activity.

More framework debaters should just go for the object of the resolution as topicality. Way too many planless teams depend entirely on state bad to win the debate without addressing real topic knowledge.

LD:

Overview:

I default to an offense/defense paradigm. Win the impact debate and the framework, and you will probably win the debate.

I will be deep in the cold, hard ground before I vote on an RVI.

Flex prep is allowed, but I do not count it as CX. You really should only do it to ask clarifying or procedural questions.

I am much more familiar with arguments that can be found in other events than I am with more specific LD arguments. This means that the nuances of unique LD debates like Phil could be lost on me. If you find me in the back for these debates, I will require more explanation and application to the larger debate to make sense of your argument.

Phil:I need a good overview at the top to explain your position. I am getting more familiar with this type of debate, but a quick and concise argument will make the debate easier for you.

Ks: Do it. I am pretty familiar with most lit bases, so I will probably have some bad comments to make.

PF:

No need for off-time road-maps or clarifications about the topic: I am aware of the resolution. Unless you are anticipating a definitions debate, that time could be better used. PF roadmaps don't make sense; you only have two flows....

I disclose, and I expect you to take notes on my RFD: You only get better with honest feedback and taking notes on said feedback. Feel free to ask questions of my decision.

I strongly encourage disclosure/evidence sharing: Good debates are made by good prep. Disclosing contentions and sharing evidence helps all of us ensure that we are using the best arguments possible. This is not a requirement, but it will help me give a better RFD and help you get better at debate.

Most 'voters' I hear aren't real voters: Voters should be crucial moments of the debate that control how I adjudicate the round. They are not just your impacts...

Framework: Can either be in the constructive or the rebuttal. It should be in the final focus if you want me to vote off it.

Theory: Allowed, but I will only vote on it if the violation is egregious and obvious.

Generic Thoughts: I think the second rebuttal should respond to the first rebuttal, and I think the first rebuttal should include a number of preemptive arguments that you assume will be read in the round. Use their contentions, their cross-fire questions, and your knowledge of the topic to predict what they will run and base your defense around that. Most case defense is meaningless repetition at best, and I don't bother flowing a lot of it.

The summary should be your last refutation of their points and the final focus should be framing, impacts, and writing the ballot. This means not everything has to be in the final focus, but offensive arguments should be.

Sid Kalasikam , Ravenwood High School -- Sidkalasikam@gmail.com

I have been a part of Toastmasters International since 2005 and had the opportunity to Judge international Speech and Humorous Speech contests. I am looking forward to experiencing the world of NSDA.

Persuasion is a part of my job. I do this thru proposals and fact based presentations. I totally appreciate the challenge of presenting a lot of content in a short amount of time in a succinct and effective manner.

General
Debate is not more about facts than the act of persuasion. There will always be two sides to a coin. What i would be judging is on how effectively someone is presenting their facts in a persuasive manner to appeal to the art of possible.

Flow of thoughts is important for me than a dump of facts. From a delivery perspective, i would expect the speakers to deliver at a legible speed that can be heard by even the distant listener in the hall/room.

I don't have any special preference between style and argument, what is important to me is how they complement each other and make the overall art of persuasion very effective. A great speaking style cannot substitute for a lack of persuasive argument.

Seven lakes High School '21 | University of Texas at Dallas '24

contact: pkasibhatla4@gmail.com

Debate experience:

I mainly participated in PF debate throughout high school at both local and national tournaments

PF:

- I am a standard flow judge who evaluates tech over truth.

- Okay with any arguments along as they are not offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.

- I am fine with speed as long as everyone in the round can clearly hear the arguments. I do not like spreading.

- Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't blatantly misconstrued the evidence. When providing paraphrased evidence please give the specific line that you reference. Evidence ethics are important, call your opponents out for any misconstrued evidence, false claims or any lies.

- Speaker points: Speaker points are awarded based on strategy and obviously how well you speak. As mentioned above, I will dock both speaker points and drop you if you have bad evidence ethics. Moreover, i'll give bonus speaker points if the round is entertaining and respectful. Being rude and loud will only decrease your speaker points so don't do that

- Give a roadmap of the speech beforehand and signpost throughout the speech.

- To extend an argument you must extend the contention name, the name of the cards and more importantly what the card says. You can't just tell me to extend 'x card' without telling me why the card is important to both your argument and the round. Speaking of extensions, the round should flow from your constructive to the final focus. The second rebuttal should respond to all offensive arguments or I consider them as drops. First summary must extend arguments and defense if it's responded to in second rebuttal. I will more than likely be voting on both the cleanest argument.

- Weighing is great, the more you weigh throughout the round the easier it is for me to vote. Please start weighing during rebuttals. New weighing after second summary is too late and I will not evaluate that.

- Any arguments or concessions during Cross must be brought up in speeches.

- If you read a framework, read warrants. The Framework debate must include weighing.

- Final focus should have the same arguments as summary

Email me if you have any questions!

I was a 4-year debater at Carrollton High School and I have only judged and competed in Public Forum.

my email is javierlm030503@gmail.com if you have any questions after the round.

Expectations

1) tech > truth

2) Do not bring up any new arguments from the second summary onwards

3) No racist or sexist remarks

4) I am not your person for theory at all

If you have any questions let me know

tldr:

trad pf judge

he/him

if you are going fast please signpost and send a speech doc, clarity is important

Weigh otherwise I'll intervene, pre-reqs and link ins are great. I presume squo then first.

Flex prep is good

Let's read warrants!

Please do not be rude or mean- your speaks will likely be lower if you do. This also means if you are sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I will stop the round and down you.

IF A TEAM CANNOT DISCLOSE BY SCHOOL POLICY I WILL NOT VOTE FOR DISCLOSURE

Read non substance at ur own discretion I was never a prog debater

paradigm

If you're reading this before a PF round consider: skip to the bolded "this is a note for PF" which is about my views on evidence. Otherwise do what you want in round; have fun, go crazy. Read the rest of the paradigm if you have time, but it's mostly about LD/Policy.

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3.Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you shouldprobably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply toall the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea.

I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

Chad Meadows (he/him)

chadwickmeadows@gmail.com

If you have interest in college debate, and would be interested in hearing about very expansive scholarship opportunities please contact me. Our program competes in two policy formats and travels to at least 4 tournaments a semester. Most of our nationally competitive students have close to zero cost of attendance because of debate specific financial support.

Debate Experience

College: I’ve been the head argument coach and/or Director of Debate for Western Kentucky University for a little over a decade. WKU primarily competes in NFA-LD, a shorter policy format. This season (2023) we are adding CEDA/NDT tournaments to our schedule.

High School: I’ve been an Assistant Coach, and primarily judge, for the Marist School in Atlanta, Georgia for several years. In this capacity I’ve judged at high school tournaments in both Policy Debate and Public Forum.

Argument Experience/Preferences

I feel comfortable evaluating the range of debates in modern policy debate (no plan affirmatives, policy, and kritik) though I am the most confident in policy rounds. My research interests tend toward more political science/international affairs/economics, though I’ve become well read in some critical areas in tandem with my students’ interests (anti-blackness/afropessimism in particular) in addition I have some cursory knowledge of the standard kritik arguments in debate, but no one would mistake me for a philosophy enthusiast. On the nuclear weapons topic, almost all of my research has been on the policy side.

I have few preferences with regard to content, but view some argumentative trends with skepticism: Counterplans that result in the plan (consult and many process counterplans), Agent counterplans, voting negative any procedural concern that isn’t topicality, reject the team counterplan theory that isn’t conditionality, some versions of politics DAs that rely on defining the process of fiat, arguments that rely on voting against the representations of the affirmative without voting against the result of the plan.

I feel very uncomfortable evaluating events that have happened outside of the debate round, especially in the CEDA/NDT community where I have limited knowledge of the context regarding community trends.

I have little experience evaluating debates with some strategies that would only be acceptable in a 2-person policy debate context - 2ac add-ons, 2nc counterplanning, 2ac intrinsicness tests on DA, etc. I’m not opposed to these strategies, and understand their strategic purpose, but I have limited exposure.

Decision Process

I tend to read more cards following the debate than most. That’s both because I’m curious, and I tend to find that debaters are informing their discussion given the evidence cited in the round, and I understand their arguments better having read the cards myself.

I give less credibility to arguments that appear unsupported by academic literature, even if the in round execution on those arguments is solid. I certainly support creativity and am open to a wide variety of arguments, but my natural disposition sides with excellent debate on arguments that are well represented in the topic literature.

To decide challenging debates I generally use two strategies: 1) write a decision for both sides and determine which reflects the in-round debating as opposed to my own intuition, and 2) list the relevant meta-issues in the round (realism vs liberal internationalism, debate is a game vs. debate should spill out, etc.) and list the supporting arguments each side highlighted for each argument and attempt to make sense of who debated the best on the issues that appear to matter most for resolving the decision.

I try to explain why I sided with the winner on each important issue, and go through each argument extended in the final rebuttal for the losing team and explain why I wasn’t persuaded by that argument.

Public Forum

Baseline expectations: introduce evidence using directly quoted sections of articles not paraphrasing, disclose arguments you plan to read in debates.

Argument preferences: no hard and fast rules, but I prefer debates that most closely resemble the academic and professional controversy posed by the topic. Debate about debate, while important in many contexts, is not the argument I'm most interested in adjudicating.

Style preferences: Argumentation not speaking style will make up the bulk of my decision making and feedback, my reflections on debate are informed by detailed note taking of the speeches, speeches should focus their time on clashing with their opponents' arguments.

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.

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

Don’t be rude to your opponents. Articulate clearly.

I was an LD/Congress debater for three years (2016-2019) and mostly competed at local tournaments, but I have experience with bid/national circuit tournaments as well. I'm pretty much here because of a combination of nostalgia and an obligation to give back to an activity that gave me so much.

Some wisdom looking back:

Don't be afraid to take up space. What you have to say matters! That being said, you can be assertive without putting down your opponent.

Debate about what you care about! Do you care about women's issues? Climate change? Access to healthcare? Find a way to relate the topic to what you deeply care about. It will make research so much more interesting and will often result in unique arguments that can be strategically favorable.

Vestavia Hills '19

Berry College '22

she/her (they/them pronouns are ok)

Email: snelson001923@gmail.com Feel free to email me for whatever, my debate resources (though not many) are your resources. I'm always down to chat about science, medicine, and environmentalism :)

Online Tournaments: Speech docs are a must!! Even if you’re not spreading, I probably won’t be able to hear you as clearly as you'd like; I've heard plenty of rounds where someone was cutting out every few seconds.

I think defaulting to they/them pronouns for everyone in the round is a pretty good practice (but not a voting issue). If you prefer something else, let me know or put your pronouns in your tabroom profile.

Any argument that I deem racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, ableist etc. will result in an immediate drop. Debate and civil discourse often excludes the voices of disadvantaged groups, and arguments like these can further deter people of these groups from participating. I default to viewing the round as a microcosm of real public policy-making/discourse, so it should be a model of respect and tolerance despite the poor example set for us by current politicians.

Plagiarism or cutting cards in a way that changes their meaning (i.e. cutting out the word NOT from a sentence) will result in an automatic loss no matter what happened on the flow if I discover it. Less blatantly incorrect but still deceptive cutting will result in me not evaluating the card in the round and a possible reduction in speaker points. If you go for evidence ethics and lose it, I won't automatically vote you down, but I'll probably lower your speaks.

PF

I've only seriously debated PF at one (online) tournament, so take that as you will. I'm not 100% on the norms as far as what counts as a dropped arg (like how much you have to do on your own case in 2nd rebuttal), so I'll let the debaters set their own norms for these and tell me why making an argument at a certain point is abusive or not.

General Stuff:

Unless I'm told to do otherwise, I'll just evaluate under util. I'll have a high threshold to be persuaded to use another fw.

COLLAPSE AND WEIGH! I hate looking at a flow with 5 contentions where cards are pretty much at a deadlock and having to decide who won.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is ok as long as cards are available. If the entire round ends up being hinged on a card or two, then I might call for them before I write my ballot. If a team fails to present me or their opponents with a card within one minute of it being called for, I won't consider the evidence.

Long rant about progressive args:

It seems like PF is following the trend of other debate events in that is getting more and more tech. I've run Ks at an online PF tournament just for fun, but whether this kind of debate should become a norm in public forum is a difficult question to answer for me. For now, I'll set these standards:

Feel free bring up issues such as structural violence and even introduce framing that is not simply a "cost-benefit analysis", but I won't weigh it entirely before substance like "pre fiat impacts" usually are in tech rounds. If you don't read this and do run a K, I'll just weigh it like a contention and there will be a high threshold for me to weigh it first (it pretty much has to be completely conceded and extended cleanly). Also, I'll be more likely to evaluate Ks like set col, afro pessimism, fem, etc because I think that these are actually issues that policymakers should consider in real life. Ks like baudrillard or anprim won't get my vote in these rounds. I won't vote on tricks in actual PF rounds. I don't really see how tricks benefit policymaking skills, which is supposed to be the point of PF. For theory, I won't weigh theory that is frivolous or dumb (shoe theory, cough cough). If the violating school is not on the wiki, I will not evaluate disclosure interps. Running disclosure on teams that don't even know that the wiki exists is horrible for small schools. If there is clear abuse in the round (like running a plan or counterplan or some other arg that inherently limits your ability to respond, including Ks and tricks), I'll weigh theory against that pretty heavily because it's the only way to check back on that abuse.

LD

I started LD at my school really just so that I wouldn't have to debate with a partner, but I ultimately fell in love with all of the layers and intricacies of LD rounds. Stock rounds are fine; they're more accessible, after all. But really, I love the meta aspect of LD that allows us to take a step back and address the assumptions that shape the round and our world through kritiks or theory. Also, introducing layers just makes my job as a judge easier most of the time.

General (if you don't want to spend forever reading all of my ramblings, just read this section)

Quick Pref Guide:

LARP: 1

Theory (basic): 1

Ks (in the direction of the topic): 2

Trad: 2/3

Tricks: 3

Ks (identity, hostage taking, not intrinsic to the topic): 3/4

Phil: 4 (dumb it down for me)

High Theory: 5/strike

I'll weigh T>theory>K>case (this is pretty basic, there will be rare instances where this differs based on how bad the top layer was or if I'm persuaded that one layer has more out of round impacts).

Tech>Truth

Please give me an off-time roadmap and signpost! Taking a couple of extra seconds can be the difference between me voting on your argument and me not even being able to put it on the flow.

Speed: If you're spreading or basically spreading under the guise of "speaking fast", just be safe and make an email chain. That way, there's no question of whether I can clearly hear and evaluate your arguments. The last thing I want is to have to leave things off my flow because I couldn't understand what you were saying.

CX: BINDING!! But also, I think it’s kinda a weak arg if you use something vaguely implied in cross as a link.

On progressive args: Accessibility to debate is (believe it or not) pretty important. Lincoln Douglas in Alabama has been slowly dying (and limited to only a few schools), while other events (PF, Congress, IEs), have generally been doing pretty well. The reason for this is that LD is inherently less accessible; the layering permitted in LD rounds requires a lot of education and resources that many debaters do not have. LD is cool in that you get to run this obscure stuff, but the point of LD is to DEBATE, as it is called Lincoln Douglas DEBATE. If you're debating against someone who has less resources and had no means to learn how to respond to these args, running tricks or high theory is going to make for an extremely unproductive round. Being able to LARP debate is still a very important and foundational skill (even if it seems like it's not because it's usually the bottom layer). If you can't get a ballot in a LARP round in this context, then you probably didn't deserve it from me in the first place. If you make it so that the other side cannot engage, I'll dock your speaks (think like 26 max), and you can say goodbye to a speaker award or a good seed for break rounds.

LARP

I was a big LARPer in high school (really because I wasn't taught much outside of LARP debate and learned more about the other stuff as a judge). If you want to limit the chance of me screwing you over with my decision, a LARP round is probably the way to go.

In LD, framework is key. It tells me how to evaluate the round, so take time to explain why I should prefer your value/value criterion/ROTB and why your case fulfills it. I would prefer that your criterion has an author explaining why it achieves your value, but if it doesn't, I'll buy analytical arguments. I'll default to util until I'm given any other fw.

CPs: I loved running these and would pretty much have an obscure CP for every topic in high school. But, there is a difference between an obscure advocacy and an abusive one. I'm very likely to prefer theory if it's run well against a PIC or conditional CP.

Plans: If your plan does not maintain the original intent of the resolution or is extra-topical, I'll prefer good theory from the neg. Keep in mind that I'm relatively a stickler for topicality, but spec as long as it fulfills the res is fine.

Disads: Don't be sloppy with the links. Tell me why you o/w on magnitude/probability.

Kritiks

I think that Ks are a very important aspect of debate in that we get to dig deeper and question the underlying societal assumptions that inform public policy making and debate. I am more familiar some of the more common ones (capitalism, biopower, anthro, afro-pessimism, queer-pessimism, fem, security etc.) I'll also vote on hostage taking/satire if extended throughout as long as the other side doesn't point out a perf con (that's the biggest weakness I see in those rounds) or have a good turn etc. Don't assume that I'm familiar with some obscure K. If you want to run something that is not on this list, PLEASE ask me about it before round. This is basically me saying that it's your responsibility to make sure that I will be able to vote on what you read. Also, I'm probably not the best person to judge a K vs K round. Because I believe that it is the affirmative's duty to be topical, it'll be hard for you to make me evaluate some K affs, but if you've learned anything from reading this, I don't have a lot of black and white rules for how a debate should go. I'll ultimately weigh the round based on the rules that are established by the debaters, so see theory below.

Performance/identity Ks are cool, but again I'd prefer that you in some way link your advocacy to the topic if you're running these on the AFF, but I won't gut check non-intrinsic K affs. Don't just go up there and read a story or say "because I'm ___ vote for me" (it has happened). Explain how my vote actually indicates a paradigm shift. Reading these well is probably one of the best ways to get high speaks from me.

If you're going for the K, the method will be under harsh scrutiny. I'm super sympathetic to charity cannibalism args against id pol Ks, especially if you don't identify with the group that is the subject of the K. Shouldn't have to be said but just... don't exploit people's suffering for the ballot.

Theory

I'm a lot better versed in theory than I am in Ks. I like it a lot more than most debaters probably, but that doesn't mean that I love friv theory. See below:

Theory serves as a check on abuse in the round and is also important in terms of setting norms for debate as an activity. Theory is not something that should just be thrown at any argument for which you didn't prep or used as a weapon to waste your opponent's time by forcing them to respond to it in the next speech. If your opponent goes for the RVI in those cases, I'll probably give it to them. That being said, I don't know why so many judges hate RVIs, but I'm often willing to vote on them to deter frivolous theory. If your opponent calls for competing interps, you'd better have a counter-interp because lack of one can easily become a voting issue. I don't really prefer education or fairness, so feel free to run either. I'm more likely to buy "drop the argument", but if initiating theory required you to drop other substance in the round, feel free to run "drop the debater". Spikes are fine; I don't love them because they're kind of abusive, so any response to them at all by the other side will require you to spend some actual time explaining why the spike is good for debate in your next speech.

Things I want to see eventually if I'm going to evaluate theory as the top layer in the debate:

-An interp stating what debaters SHOULD do (not what they should not do)

-A clear violation linking specifically to what your opponent read

-A couple standards listing problems that the abuse causes/exacerbates in the round and how this practice prevents fairness and/or education

-Voters/paradigm issues: Tell me WHY promoting fairness or education is a prereq to the rest of the flow. Tell me whether I should drop the debater or the argument (drop the debater needs some kind of justification for why this abuse requires a deterrent that severe). I default to reasonability if nothing is specified but have a low threshold for evaluating competing interps.

Interps that I'll be especially sympathetic to:

-Any T framework

-Spec Good/Bad (nebel)

-PICs bad

-Condo bad

-no Alts bad

-severance perms bad

-NIBs bad

Tricks

If you're running tricks and say "what's an a priori", minus two speaks.

Tricks are pretty much dependent on truth testing framing (trying to make tricks a voting issue with comparative worlds framing is dumb, don't do it), so they're not as infallible as they may seem. I'll be receptive to tricks, but if you're debating against someone who knows what they're doing, you'll probably just end up kicking them and you will have really just wasted your own speech time. I'm not a big fan of NIBs, but I can't say that I'm not partially here to be entertained, so if you make the round entertaining with tricks or just anything unexpected, that'll be reflected in your speaker points. At the same time, if you're a big school debater running these against a small school debater or novice who doesn't even know what they are, your speaks will be docked a bit (see LD general).

Speaks

+0.3 for running something fem

-0.5 for disrespectful expressions while your opponent is speaking (I see this a lot between partners in PF)

+0.2 for a good pun (limited to only one addition of 0.2 points, please don't make me cringe)

+0.4 for some (ACCURATE) chemistry explanation. This would be cool, but you'd also probably waste some time doing this if you're going for the ballot. If you just want speaks, this is an easy bonus. I have had someone take advantage of this once, and it made my day.

-0.5 if it's pretty clear that you have no idea what your cards actually say

-1 if you're a big school debater and try to tell a small school debater what's good for them

*See LD General about progressive args and speaks

Points can be added subjectively for how entertained I was by your speeches.

If you have any questions about what to run, feel free to ask me before the round.

Experience/Background: I coached at Columbus HS from 2013-2021, primarily Public Forum, and now coach at Carrollton HS (2021-present). I did not debate in high school or college, but I have been coaching and judging PF, a little LD, and IEs since 2013, both locally (Georgia) and on the national circuit, including TOC and NSDA Nationals. I spent several years (2017-2022) as a senior staff member with Summit Debate and previously led labs at Emory (2016-2019).

Judging Preferences:

If you have specific questions about me as a judge that are not answered below (or need clarification), please feel free to ask them. Some general guidelines and answers to frequently asked questions are below:

1. Speed: I can flow a reasonably fast speed when I'm at the top of my game, but I am human. If it's late in the day/tournament, I am likely tired, and my capacity for speed drops accordingly. I will not be offended if you ask me about this before the round. For online rounds, I prefer that you speak at a more moderate speed. I will tell you "clear" if I need you to slow down. If I am flowing on paper, you should err on the slower side of speed than if I am flowing on my laptop.

2. Signposting and Roadmaps: Signposting is good. Please do it. It makes my job easier. Off-time roadmaps aren't really needed if you're just going "their case, our case", but do give a roadmap if there's a more complex structure to your speech.

3. Consistency of Arguments/Making Decisions: Anything you expect me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. Defense is not "sticky" -- meaning you cannot extend it from rebuttal to final focus. Please weigh. I love voters in summary, but I am fine if you do a line-by-line summary.

4. Prep (in-round and pre-round): Please pre-flow before you enter the round. Monitor your own prep time. If you and your opponents want to time each other to keep yourselves honest, go for it. Do not steal prep time - if you have called for a card and your opponents are looking for it, you should not be writing/prepping unless you are also running your prep time. (If a tournament has specific rules that state otherwise, I will defer to tournament policy.) On that note, have your evidence ready. It should not take you longer than 20-30 seconds to pull up a piece of evidence when asked. If you delay the round by taking forever to find a card, your speaker points will probably reflect it.

5. Overviews in second rebuttal: In general, I think a short observation or weighing mechanism is probably more okay than a full-fledged contention that you're trying to sneak in as an "overview". Tread lightly.

6. Frontlines: Second speaking team should answer turns and frontline in rebuttal. I don't need a 2-2 split, but I do think you need to address the speech that preceded yours.

7. Theory, Kritiks, and Progressive Arguments: I prefer not judging theory debates. Strongly prefer not judging theory debates. If you are checking back against a truly abusive practice, I will listen to and evaluate the argument. If you are using theory/Ks/etc. in a way intended to overwhelm/intimidate an opponent who has no idea what's going on, I am not going to respond well to that.

8. Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. If it comes up in cross and you expect it to serve a role in my decision-making process, I expect you to bring it up in a later speech.

9. Speaker points: I basically never give 30s, so you should not expect them from me. My range is usually from 28-29.7.

I did Lincoln Douglas for 4 years in high school. Pretty unfamiliar with PF but argumentation is the same in all debates. Make good arguments, extend and weigh impacts, and roadmap your way to the ballot.

For online tournaments, please send speech docs/add me to the chain: muhurtorahman@gmail.com. I will be muted the entire round. Just assume that I am ready before every speech.

tldr; Don't be rude. I like substance. Weigh and collapse.

--------

everything else:

I'm comfortable with spreading but have been out of circuit for around 2 years now so slow down on tags and send me your cases if you spread. Talk at whatever pace feels comfortable for you.

Tech over truth but don't make the debate space insufferable.

Decent at evaluating progressive args but you probably shouldn't be running it here if you don't need to. Not a fan of tricks.

Theory should only be used if there was genuine abuse, it's up to you to prove that it's genuine.

Read trigger warnings it's a good norm.

Timers/Roadmap - You are allowed to use your own timer for reference. I will allow you to finish your sentence after time is up without impacting your speaks. Aside from this, if you go over time, I will take off from speaker points. I take off-time roadmaps or just give me the order.

Respect is important to me. There is a difference between being rude and being aggressive. I'll let things slide more in cx.

Framework makes the gamework. weighing impacts under a framework gets you lots of speaks.

Constructive: Your arguments should be well warranted and have strong links. If it's squirrely I'm less likely to vote for you. Overviews: If your overview is a way to give your team new offense (i.e. sneaky 3rd contention) or abusive, I'll flow but drop speaks. I like overviews that are weighing/overall responses. Rebuttals: The responses to rebuttals must be said in the following speeches otherwise it's dropped. If you access it later I will take off from speaks. If your opponent tries to do this, I will probably notice but it will be better if you just tell me.

Summary and Final Focus: The Final Focus can only bring up arguments that are stated in the summary. These speeches should mirror each other. I won't evaluate anything in final focus unless you only start weighing there. Please weigh early. I won't count just a buzzword as weighing. Make sure you are interacting with your opponent's weighing.

Flex-prep: Generally good with this unless it's abusive.

Progressive: I did LD so I understand progressive arguments. However, I'd rather you engage in substance in PF. If you do choose to run anything progressive, explain to me why it matters. Running it against someone who has no clue how to respond tanks speaks, but I'll still evaluate.

Theory or T's I'm most comfortable with. If your opponent is abusive but you are inexperienced at running theory, just give me reasons why what they did is bad.

K's are fine, just make the alts and solvency clear, warrant it out well. Not really hip to a lot of literature now.

CPs - I'd rather you not run CPs, especially in PF. If you do I'll still flow it through but the chances of me picking you up will not be that high.

Phil/LARP/Spikes - Love Phil debates a lot. I'll vote off spikes if there's really nothing else, but honestly please don't collapse on them.

Tricks - Don't really think PF is the place for these.

Speaker Points:

Here's a rough framework of what to expect: <27 - you did something offensive or unethical, 27-28 - below average, 28-29 - slightly below, at, or slightly above average, 29-30 - great debater, should be in late elims

nastiness is not appreciated

* Quality of argumentation

* I don't like people getting angry, personal, or condescending during debate

This is my first time judging a debate and I am very excited to hear what you have prepared today. I ask that you make sure that you are speaking clearly and not rushing. I would like to be able to hear all of your points and arguments. I also ask that your final speeches focus on why you and your team have won the argument.

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.

Hey, I'm Alec. I debated Public Forum for Carrollton High School and now I attend UGA

Email: alecsiek1@gmail.com (please add me to the email chain)

I never really know how to structure my preferences, so here's a basic rundown of what I like to see:

1) Tech > Truth. Everything you want me to vote on needs to be really well warranted in every speech though.

2) Spend time engaging in arguments constructively. Good logic beats bad evidence every time.

3)Please collapse as the round progresses.I am a huge believer that one or two really well warranted arguments are better than a bunch of unwarranted ones.

4) Weigh consistently, direct comparison of links will take you far. As a judge, I want to intervene as little as possible. The earlier you start weighing, the better.

5)Meta-weighing is important! If you are using different weighing mechanisms than your opponents, you should be weighing those too.

6) I can handle speed, just make sure you're not sacrificing clarity.

7) I have really low threshold for theory, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for it. If you are keeping an abusive practice in check, go for it. However, if you are running theory against a team that has no threshold for it, that can be equally abusive in my eyes.

Other than that, you do you. There is not one right style of debate, and I don't want to make you fit into one.

I hope this goes without saying, but please be respectful to your opponents. Debate is such a cool educational tool, and I hate it when people are discouraged from using it. If you are being blatantly disrespectful, I'll drop you.

Current Coach -- Marist School (2020-present)

Former PF Debater -- Marist School (2016-2020)

Current Student at the University of Georgia

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.

Hello Debaters! I have experience in the debate community judging since 2016! I debated PF at Grovetown High School from 2014-2016, and now teach English at Riverwood High School!

I mostly judge PF:

1. Please speak at a pace where I and the opposing team can understand you.
2. Do not assume that I know all the lingo of the resolved. (ex: random treaties, random signed government documents) Please explain when something has been abbreviated.
3. I do not need an off-time road map. If you need to jot one down on your paper for your organizational purposes, cool, but it has no use to me as I am writing down literally everything you are saying, and do not need the order your speech goes in, unless you are just telling me that you are just explaining that the speech has one purpose (ex Impacts).
4. Please. Look. At. Each. Other. During. Cross. Not. Me. It’s. Weird. You’re arguing and questioning each other. It’s not a speech, It's a time to question each other!!
5. Please take prep time when reading another opponent's evidence.
6. Please do not give me the impact of POVERTY. Debaters usually try to link some huge world problem in the resolve with the impact that poverty is the end all-be-all, and is the worst thing ever. Global poverty is a systemic issue that people cannot help as it is an effect of systemic racism, capitalism, etc. Poverty is the reality of many inside and outside of the debate community, and you never know what someone is carrying into a round with on their back. I have seen this impact so over used and incorrectly used in the past years it has been harmful to me as a judge. This is a complex issue that 14-18 year olds cannot solve, and is usually only given harmful, exacerbated solutions to, therefore I no longer want to hear about it.
7. I will generally base speaker points on rhetorical skill rather than argumentative technicals.
8. Constantly tell me why I should vote for you. In other words, weigh impacts and extend your arguments. Please don't just repeat your contentions for every segment.
9. Debate should be a fun, enjoyable and equitable experience for all parties involved. If I hear students making discriminatory comments towards other teams or arguments discriminating others I will report you to the tournament leader and your coach, and have you pulled from the tournament. You are representing your school, your community, and your family when you are at these events. This is bigger than you.
10. If I close my eyes or look to the side while you are speaking during your speech, I am trying to focus and listen. I have combined type-ADHD, and I am just trying to SUPER FOCUS on the WORDS YOU ARE SAYING!! PF has so much info, I don't wanna miss a second!! Please do not take offense!

11. I prefer not to be included on email chains. If I need to see a piece of evidence that is called into question, I will look at it for myself.

12. Please, use your manners and let each team finish speaking during the crossfire. Let each other finish the question and talking. It's rude to treat your opposing team like that. Use your southern manners Y'all.
13. Give me a second while I am entering a round for the first time to set up everything. I be carrying junk around in my bag.
14. Please extend arguments and impacts in your summary and Final Focus, I understand it can be tempting to summerize your contentions. The other team and I listened to the whole hour plus of debate too, tell me how your contentions still stand and WHY! Give me impacts of those contentions. WHY THEY MATTER!!

15. I disclose after every round because I hate typing. :)

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at storyariel@gmail.com

See you out there! Happy Debating!

Debate should be about dialog and not confrontation. I realize people get excited when stating and reinforcing a point of view, but please let’s keep it civilized.

Be mindful of your allotted time and articulate your points clearly and concisely.

I like to see eye contact, knowledge of your topic, and interchange between debaters when proving/disproving points.

I am not impressed by debaters repeating the same data points constantly until the allotted time is exhausted or reading a computer screen at 200 miles an hour; rapid speaking is acceptable if it is understandable.

If you want to win, persuade me into viewing the argument from your point of view; you may do this by demonstrating knowledge breadth and depth about the topic you are defending. It is not only about stating your position on the resolution, but you must also be able to defend it and prove to me why your position is the best position during the crossfires.

Cards may be sent to ntillero@comcast.net

debated PF in high school local and nationally

if LD treat me like a lay judge

Normal talking speed helps me understand you better.

Email: yiwen.wu76@gmail.com

Please add both yiwen.wu76@gmail.com and mcleanpublicforum@gmail.com to the email chain.

Background: I am a parent judge. I have judged a few PF tournaments in the past (mainly on the local circuit).

PF: Please do not spread; explain your logic clearly. Do not use debate jargon, I probably won't understand it.

I will flow what I hear. Sign post with arguments not authors.

I will not evaluate arguments with weak or misleading evidence/warranting.

All offense/defense you want me to evaluate must be in both summary and final focus. Please weigh.

I will not understand or evaluate progressive arguments. 

Speaker Points: Please be polite and respectful at all times. I will take off speaker points if you are not doing well/rude in cross.

Lay Judge

Talk slowly or at a moderate pace for both cases and speeches.

Clarity is key - make sure to explain your arguments thoroughly. Don't use debate jargon as I probably won't be able to follow you.

Be respectful - don't be rude or passive-aggressive during cross.

Implicate and extend claims, warrants, and impacts. Don't assume the judge knows what you are talking about in every new speech, reiterate the most important concepts in the round that you want the judge to vote off of.

Reexplain all defense read in all speeches as it isn't extended if you don't explain the warranting from speech to speech.

WEIGH - Tell me why your arguments/links to those arguments matter more. If no weighing is done the round could go either way.

Intro: Hi everyone! My name is Ariel (she/her/hers), and I am currently a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania, studying finance & marketing operations with a design minor.

Background: I debated Public Forum for four years at Vestavia Hills High School in Birmingham, Alabama. I debated on the local and national circuit and qualified to NSDA Nationals and TOC Gold in 2020. I also kinda competed in Congress (but like idk what I was doing).

PF:

General/Fun Overview

1. If you turn when you read a turn, I will give you +0.5 speaks.

2. I like puns and funny catchphrases in speeches, so do what you will with that info.

3. Don't steal prep time pls and thx - also i hate extremely long evidence exchanges. I expect you to run your own prep time if you call for evidence.

4. I vote off crossfire. Just kidding. I will probably be on my phone during cross, so if anything important happens in cross, be sure to reference it in later speeches, so I can flow it.

5. If you fail to present evidence within three mins, I will scratch it from my flow.

6. Tech > Truth

7. Any discriminatory comments will result in an auto drop.

8. On a scale of 1-10, I can flow speed of around 7. Spread at your own risk.

Progressive Args

1. My experience with Progressive Args is limited. I'm not a huge fan of frivolous theory and non-topical kritiks. Run at your own risk. 90% of the time, I will be confused. Do whatever. Go stupid. Go crazy.

2. Please don't run theory unless there is an actual violation. Disclosure, Paraphrasing, and Trigger Warning theory are fine I guess.

3. USE TRIGGER WARNINGS. PLEASE if you run any suicide or domestic abuse or anything potentially triggering in case, give us a heads up and warning ahead of time.

Rebuttals

1. Second rebuttal should frontline turns, extend, and weigh case. Start collapsing if you want. It makes the narrative more clear.

2. Weigh and implicate any turns.

3. Quality > Quantity

Summary

1. Defense is sticky. Frontline in rebuttal/1st summary if you want to extend an argument.

2. COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE. COLLAPSE down on one or two arguments. Do not give me a summary of everything.

3. weigh. weigh. weigh. start early. I expect weighing in BOTH summary and final focus. Tell me why I prefer your arguments.

4. No new arguments or evidence should be read AFTER the first summary unless you are responding to a new response in the first summary.

5. I prefer line by line over big picture, but do as you please.

Final Focus

1. If it's not in summary, it can't be in the final focus.

2. If you extend a completely different argument than your partner did in their summary, you have no offense.

3. Paint a narrative by the final focus speeches. EXTEND the full link chain and warrants and impact. If there is no impact, I will not vote for it.

4. I enjoy probability weighing.

LD:

um... yea. Treat me like a lay judge :)

Any Questions? Email me OR send me a meme: aszhou@wharton.upenn.edu

I'm a parent judge with about 2 years of judging experiences, mostly in PF and some in LD.

Never done Policy before so please don't spread. If I can not catch what your arguments are, I can't vote for them.

If may be helpful if you want to share your case doc with me: zhusufeng@hotmail.com.

Be confident, respectful and have fun.