Background: Judging online from Indonesia GMT+7 (12 hours ahead of EST/CDT). I judged several varsity level British/Asian/Australs parliamentary debating tournaments around Southeast Asia from 2016 till 2021. As of Nov 2023, I judged a total of 13 Public Forum, 1 Lincoln-Douglas, and 1 WSDC competitions in the U.S. circuit.

Technicalities: Some people may put a heavy emphasis on the presence of evidence and the presentation of examples, but for me, warrant: coherent logical explanation and step-by-step analysis of your argument is more valuable. Spewing out too many facts and trivia before you explain your assertions confuses me. Use those data to back up your arguments, not to lengthen your speech. Also, don't forget to connect the extensions. Do put elaborations on why any impact you give is significant and unique to your side.

Strategy: Don't ever forget to weigh in your arguments against your opponent's. I also expect the two-worlds scenario when you're painting your case. Rather than saying "To give you an off-time roadmap..." in the beginning, better if you do signpost as you go because it will surely help me do the flow during the speech. I love the "even ifs" and the clear-cut comparison between your model and your rival's model.

Manner: No spreading. Please speak clearly and don't rap out your speech. You may turn off cameras if you (or I happen to) experience lags or internet problems. Please time your own speech and when you start, just speak. There's no need to say "time starts now/on my first word" because some scientists argued that time began shortly after The Big Bang.

Correspondence: albert-yang@mail.com. Yes, without the G.

Talk slow, don’t use jargon, keep it simple and focus on conveying your arguments. Try to talk to me as much as you can, act as if you're teaching me about the subject, don't merely read your case/flow. No need to send me any documents. I don't respect arguments that catastrophize or claim that everyone will die unless you have very strong reasoning and evidence, all of which is articulated.

I am judging debate from last few years. Please be sure to speak slowly and clearly so that I am able to take appropriate notes. Clarity over speed. If you use debate jargon, you will need to explain it to me.

I hope to see good use of evidence and delivery. Evidence should be timely, relevant, and trustworthy. Debaters should call for evidence and refute it when possible. Delivery is critical. Debaters should be clear and
concise. I want to see that you are defending your arguments well, not just negating your opponents points.

If you can keep track of speech times, that would be helpful.

It's important that debaters be courteous to each other during the round.

Have a great debate!

Hey everyone, I am Ritvik, an engineering student from Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, India.
I have been debating for almost two years and am a part of the AugLi Future Skills Academy.

Hello,

Bio: My name is Jessica Awurum and I am a Law School Student at the University of Ilorin Nigeria. I have been a debater since 2019 and have been engaged with high school debating since 2020 mostly as a judge and coach. I was also the President of the legal debate team for 2 consecutive years and currently coach with a number of debating institutions. I am very versed with all debating strategies as I have to engage a number of different debating styles on a frequent basis with my engagements on international fronts.

Email: jessicaawurum@gmail.com (same as tabroom mail)

Advice for speakers:

No matter what form of debate, here are some general rules of respect I expect all participants to follow:

• I credit good structure and organization highly as it shows intentionality and preparedness in the debate. Factors like a clear flagging of your argumentation and summary speeches that focus on clashes will all be credited. I look to them to resolve really close calls sometimes so be aware.

• Being respectful and polite is also a fundamental rule for me. I will not accept any form of rudeness Ableism, mockery, racism, homophobia and abusive tone will be hugely frowned out. This doesn't mean you can't be strategically triggering but it must be only within the content of the debate to offset your opponent and must only be on objective metrics. (That is up to you to figure out but it has to be generally objective) No yelling, interrupting, cursing, or name calling during cross. I will dock speaker points for inappropriate behavior or language.

• A trigger warning must be given for topics concerning SA, abuse, etc. If the opposing team is not okay with these topics, you are expected to have a backup argument that you can use in its place.

• I appreciate valid evidence and clear statements from them. If you have alot of specific knowledge on an area do not hesitate to use them all in a story in a song in whatever way you please. Feel free to also weaponize that expert knowledge as you see fit to point out your opponent lack of Knowledge thereof. Using references of any kind from educational to facts from games will all be accepted as binding form of evidence

• Innovative arguments are welcomed with good analysis. I am open to unorthodox argumentation and running new evaluation metrics to an old truism or likewise. Thinking out of the box and making an unconventional or radical argument will not earn you a loss especially if you engage it well. Feel free to break from standard. Be creative in a realistic way!

• I respect a good rebuttals void of individual criticism of the speaker but still as engaging. I will not credit responses that are new argumentationsas rebuttals. So make sure to tailor your responses to the immediate argument you are responding to.

• Debate fairly and do not place unfavorable burdens on your opponents. Debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and acceptable. Please don't drop them.

Biases:

I have no inherent bias per se. I would say that I am very averse to disrespectfulness and I cannot deny that any form of discrimination or equity violation will impact your ability to convince me on anything else. Please be very respectful of everyone in the room.

That aside, I don't vote on truism but actually analysis. This means even if I know for a fact that your claim is true I will not value it if you do not prove it.

Note Taking:

This defer for the style or debating but i range from taking short note of bullet point, to noting key terms to elaborate notes. More importantly I am likely to note personal feedback for each speaker as I listen to their speech so feel free to ask for personal notes after the speech and those will be provided for you.

I am open to judging all styles of debating: Parliament, CX, Policy, Congress and other speech styles. I do not have as much experience with Lincoln Douglas mostly because I don't use it often but I Understand all the processes of it.

Finally, I am pretty decent and understanding so if you have any questions do not hesitate to ask them including feedback on the round through your coaches or parents. Also notify me of any notice I should be taking from your speech prior to it so I don't miss something you would consider as important.

Thank you .

I prioritize well proven cases and realistic impacts.

I also encourage the use of good speech rhetoric in delivery.

Adjudicator

Jane Boyd

School: Grapevine HS - Interim Director of Debate and Speech

Email: janegboyd79@gmail.com (for case/evidence sharing)

School affiliation/s – Grapevine HS

Years Judging/Coaching - 39

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event 39

Order of Paradigms PFD, LD, World Schools, Policy (scroll down)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Public Forum Debate

I am more of a traditionalist on PFD. I don't like fast PFD. The time constraints just don't allow it. No plans or counter plans. Disadvantages can be run but more traditionally and not calling it a disadvantage.

Basic principles of debate - claim, warrant, and IMPACT must be clearly explained. Direct clash and clear signposting are essential. WEIGH or compare impacts. Tell me ;your "story" and why I should vote for your side of the resolution.

I have experience with every type of debate so words like link cross-apply, drop -- are ok with me.

The summary and final focus should be used to start narrowing the debate to the most important issues with a direct comparison of impacts and worldview

I flow - IF you share cases put me on the email chain but I won't look at it until the end and ONLY if evidence or arguments are challenged. Speak with the assumption that I am flowing not reading.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lincoln Douglas Debate

A good debate is a good debate. Keep in mind that trying to be cutting-edge does NOT make for good debate by itself. While I appreciate innovation - I hate tricks for the sake of tricks and theory used as a strategy. I prefer topic-based arguments. Keep that in mind.

Framework/Values/Criteria/Standards/Burdens

Standards, criteria, framework, and/or burdens serve as the same thing - these are mechanisms for how determining who wins the debate. If a value is used it needs to be defended throughout the case and not simply an afterthought. The framework of the debate should not be longer than the rest of the case. Unless it is necessary to make the framework clear, cut to the chase and tell me what is acceptable and not acceptable, but don't spend 2 1/2 minutes on something that should take just a few sentences to make clear. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic, not excessive framework or theory. Note the word excessive. I am not stupid and usually get it much quicker than you think. In the debate resolve the issue of standard and link it to the substantive issues of the round then move on.

Evidence and Basic Argumentation:

The evidence adds credibility to the arguments of the case however I don't want to just hear you cite sources without argumentation and analysis of how it applies to the clash in the debate. I don't like arguments that are meant to confuse and say absolutely nothing of substantive value. I am fine with philosophy but expect that you can explain and understand the philosophies that you are applying to your case or arguments. A Kritik is nothing new in LD. Traditional LD by nature is perfect, but I recognize the change that has occurred. I accept plans, DAs, counter plans, and theory (when there is a violation - not as the standard strategy.) Theory, plans, and counter plans must be run correctly - so make sure you know how to do it before you run it in front of me.

Flow and Voters:

I think that the AR has a very difficult job and can often save time by grouping and cross-applying arguments, please make sure you are clearly showing me the flow where you are applying your arguments. I won't cross-apply an argument to the flow if you don't tell me to. I try not to intervene in the debate and only judge based on what you are telling me and where you are telling me to apply it. Please give voters; however, don't give 5 or 6. You should be able to narrow the debate down to critical areas. If an argument is dropped, then make sure to explain the importance or relevance of that argument don't just give me the "it was dropped so I win the argument." I may not buy that it is an important argument; you have to tell me why it is important in this debate.

Presentation:

I can flow very well. Slow the heck down, especially in the virtual world. The virtual world is echoing and glitchy. Unless words are clear I won't flow the debate. Speed for the sake of speed is not a good idea.

Kritik:

I have been around long enough to have seen the genesis of Kritik's arguments. I have seen them go from bad to worse, and then good in the policy. I think that K's arguments are in a worse state in LD now. Kritik is absolutely acceptable IF it applies to the resolution and specifically the case being run in the round. I have the same expectation here as in policy the "K" MUST have a specific link. "K" arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of a generic Kritik that questions if we exist or not and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate at hand. Kritik must give an alternative other than "think about it." Most LD is asking me to take any action with a plan or an objective - a K needs to do the same thing. That being said, I will listen to the arguments but I have a very high threshold for the bearer to meet before I will vote on a "K" in LD.

Theory:

I have a very high threshold of acceptance of theory in LD. There must be a clear abuse story. Also, coming from a policy background - it is essential to run the argument correctly. For example having a violation, interpretation, standards, and voting issues on a Topicality violation is important. Also, know the difference between topicality and extra-tropical. or knowing what non-unique really means is important. Theory for the sake of a time suck is silly and won't lead me to vote on it at the end. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic, not just a generic framework or theory. RVI's: Not a fan. Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote though unless you have a compelling reason.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WORLD SCHOOL DEBATE

I have experience and success coaching American Style Debates. Worlds Schools Debate quickly has become my favorite. I have coached teams to elimination rounds at local, state, and NSDA National tournament every year that I coached WSD. I judge WSD regularly and often.

The main thing to know is I follow the norms of WSD (that you all have access). I don't want WSD Americanized.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

WSD is a classic debate. The type when folks think about the debate. Much more based on logic and classic arguments with some evidence but not evidence-heavy. It is NOT an American-style debate.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate?

I flow each speech.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

I look at both. Does the principle have merit and the practical is the tangible explanation? I don’t think that the practical idea has to solve but is it a good idea?

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall scores, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

Strategy is argument selection in speeches 2, 3, and 4. In 1st speech, it is how the case is set up and does it give a good foundation for other speeches to build.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

The style mostly, but if it is really fast then maybe strategy as well.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

The argument that makes the most sense, is extended throughout the debate, and does it have the basics of claim, warrant, and impact?

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Models are simply an example of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

Models and countermodels are simply examples of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy Debate:

A good Debate is a good debate. I flow from the speech not from the document. I do want to be on the email chain though. I prefer good substantive debate on the issues. While Ks are okay if you are going to read them, make sure they are understandable from the beginning. Theory - the same. If you think you might go for it in the end, make sure they are understandable from the beginning.

Be aware, that on virtual, sometimes hard to understand rapid and unclear speech (it is magnified on virtual). Make necessary adjustments.

Links should be specific and not generic. This is everything from K to DA.

The final speech needs to tell the story and compare worlds. Yes, line by line is important but treat me like a policymaker - tell me why your policy or no policy would be best.

anthonyrbrown85@gmail.com for the chain

*Please show up to the round pre-flowed and ready to go. If you get to the room before me or are second flight, flip and get the email chain started so we don't delay the rounds.*

Background

Currently the head coach at Southlake Carroll. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.

General

You would probably classify me as a flay judge. The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents.

Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you can’t speak fast and clearly at the same time then that’ll be your fault. If you really want to avoid this issue then I would send a speech doc if you plan on going more than 225 wpm.

I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.

I would classify myself as tech over truth but let’s not get too crazy.

Speaking

Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me.

I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.

Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.

PF Specific

I’m probably not evaluating your K or theory argument at a non-bid tournament. If you’re feeling brave then you can go for it but unless the literature is solid and it is very well run, I’m going to feel like you’re trying to strat out of the debate by utilizing a style that is not yet a norm and your opponents likely did not plan for. If we're at a bid tournament or state, go for it.

Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said. Occasionally I write down the content of the card but not the author so if you just extend an author it won’t do you any good.

I have a super high threshold for IVIs. If there's some sort of debate based abuse run a proper shell.

LD Specific (This is not my primary event so I would make sure I check this)

Cheatsheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)

Policy: 1

Theory: 2

Topical Ks: 2

Phil: 4

Non-Topical Ks: 4

Tricks: 5

I’ll understand your LARP arguments. I’ll be able to follow your spreading. I can evaluate most K’s but am most comfortable with topical K’s. I will understand your theory arguments but typically don't go for RVIs. I would over-explain if you don’t fall into those categories and adjust if possible.

I was a high school cross-examination (a.k.a. Policy) debater from 1987-1991 at Jesuit High School New Orleans. I am now an assistant coach for Debate at Phoenix Country Day School as well as the Physics teacher. In between, I earned a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and B.A. in Plan II from the University of Texas at Austin (1996), a PhD in Chemical Engineering from MIT (2001), post-doctoral research in Cell Biology at the Duke University Medical Center (2001-2002), and then was an Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Arizona State University (2003-2018).

For Public Forum debate rounds:

1) I do flow. Although I can flow at speed (see below for Policy debate), Public Forum rounds should be about convincing me that your overall argument and position on the resolution is correct. What does this mean? It means that, although dropping an argument is important, it doesn't mean that the argument that was dropped becomes absolute truth. It does mean that your opponent did not refute your original claim and warrant, but you still need to explain how that claim and warrant support your overall position in the round in summary and final focus to convince me that your overall position on the resolution is better than your opponent's. So, in PF rounds, I discourage speed. Speak at a normal pace and trust that I am keeping track of your arguments. Signpost (tell me what argument you're responding to or what overall contention you're talking about) so that I can put your responses where they should go.

2) Use cross-examination periods to ask questions you genuinely want your opponent to answer. Listen to their response respectfully. Don't use cross-examination periods to make arguments. And definitely do not use cross-examination periods to badger or bully your opponent.

3) In summaries and final focuses (foci?), make sure to write my ballot for me by telling me how I should view the various positions in the round. If you use frameworks, tell me how I should view the various positions in the round as if I accept your framework OR your opponent's framework -- do both because you don't know which framework I'm going to find more convincing. The more you can bring the various different individual claims into a holistic view on the resolution, the more you're writing my ballot for me. You still need to win those individual claims (so don't forget to spend some time doing that), but synthesizing those claims into a coherent view of the resolution will go a long way to helping me decide the round. And that's even better if you bring your opponent's claims into that synthesis. For example: "Even if you agree with my opponent's claim that _______, there are still ### million people who benefit because of ________ that we're proposing due to [warrant for that claim]."

4) Remember that clash is critical. Go beyond the taglines to debate the warrants (reasoning) behind the other team's arguments vs. the reasoning behind your own arguments. Then go one step further and help me understand how your argument fits into the larger context of the round to "write my ballot" during your rebuttal / summary / final focus speeches.

For Policy debate rounds:

1) I need to understand what you say. I am fine with spreading as long as you enunciate clearly. And, if a particular argument is critical to your strategy, slow down a bit on the tagline to make sure I flow it properly. I will not be on the evidence chain. I believe debate is a speaking event, so I need to hear you say things and understand them at the speed you deliver them. If a piece of evidence is argued in the round such that my reading what it says after the round may affect my decision, I will ask for a limited number of pieces of evidence after the round. If you want me to look at a particular piece of evidence, tell me that in your speech and explain why reading it should be important to deciding the round.

2) In rebuttals, make sure to write my ballot for me by telling me how I should view the various positions in the round as if I accept your framework OR your opponent's framework -- do both because you don't know which framework I'm going to find more convincing. Unless one or both teams argue to judge the round otherwise, I default to hypothesis testing of the resolution. But I'm certainly willing to be convinced to judge the round in other ways. For example, if you argue a K, just make sure to do a good job convincing me that it's important for me to judge based on the K rather than on the typical framework (i.e., hypothesis testing).

Specifically regarding Ks, if it seems to me that you're just running the K to score a win in the debate round rather than actually caring about the issue being Kritik-ed, you can convince me to vote on it; but you'll find it easier to convince me if you actual care about the issue and legitimately believe the other team is exacerbating the problem. Also, for both Aff and Neg, focus on the "Alt". The Alt should be concrete to the point where I can understand what happens in the world if we do the Alt.

Other argument types:

T - Of course. My default is hypothesis testing unless you tell me otherwise.

CP - A good counterplan debate is great fun. Although CPs are easiest when non-topical and competitive, I'm willing to hear theory arguments that I should allow an exception.

DAs - These are the meat of all good hypothesis testing rounds. Make sure to pay good attention to the internal links in the DA. Also, I'm happy to vote for DAs that don't cause nuclear war. When I debated, my favorite DA was "deficits" which often just led to economic collapse. I'm happy to vote for a DA that causes highly probably harms that are moderately bad, and I find those more convincing than DAs that cause unlikely but world-ending harm.

Case - Please argue case. If nothing more, if you're Neg, please at least make a few arguments against case's solvency and whatever their biggest harms are. If the Neg leaves case with 100% solvency and no doubt about the harms, I find it hard to vote down the Aff. Vice-versa when you're Aff.

Performance Affs/Negs - Your #1 goal in the round (sine qua non) will be to convince me that I should judge the round in a non-traditional way that matches your performance goal. For the Neg, I've found that taking the strategy that I shouldn't vote in that non-traditional way isn't always best -- good Affs are very prepared for that strategy (so this usually only wins against teams that aren't well prepared to run their Aff). So, as the Neg, consider the strategy of accepting the basic premise but do it better (e.g., more inclusive, etc.) than the Aff.

For all of these, remember that clash is critical. Go beyond the taglines to debate the warrants (reasoning) behind the other team's arguments vs. the reasoning behind your own arguments. Then go one step further and help me understand how your argument fits into the larger context of the round to "write my ballot" during your rebuttal speeches.

Hey y’all I graduated Southlake Carroll in '22 and will graduate from Texas A&M in '26

beandottie@gmail.com

General

Long story short you do you if you have any questions before round pls ask me!

For LD

I did this event for 4 1/2 years in high school. I'm cool with most things, I ran mostly policy arguments. I am good with CPs, DAs, topicality, most theory shells, and Ks (I would over-explain more complex Ks like Baudrillard, Deleuze, etc.). Definitely not good for tricks and extremely frivolous theory shells.

For online tournaments go about 70% speed, online makes it laggier and harder to hear. I will yell clear twice and then after that ask that you slow down.

For WSD

I did this event in my senior year of high school! I liked it a lot, since I come from an LD background I am probably going to be more technical than not. I like weighing in this event :). I don't mind definition debates but there should be obviously two different models competing AND solid warrants.

For PF

Not my main event put PLEASE send cases before the round starts. Setting up an email chain halfway through the round is time-consuming and delays the round. Theory in this event is (generally) fine, and so are Ks.

Hello!

I did CA parli from 2017-2019, NPDA and IPDA from 2019-2021, and am currently participating in APDA and BP.

I can understand Theory and Kritik and may vote on it if it's done well. I am fine with relatively high speeds but I am not a former policy debater.

I enjoy being told where to flow arguments.

Dropped arguments are won arguments but that doesn't mean that they are winning arguments.

I prefer World Schools debaters to be proactive in taking and asking POIs. It makes you appear more confident and persuasive. Ask POIs whenever you have doubts, even when you know they won't be taken. Ask opponents if they have POIs after establishing your strongest point, especially when they already appear silent.

Structured speeches are also greatly appreciated. Clearly foreshadow your main arguments and the arguments you will respond to. This helps me gain a clearer picture of whether you have grasped the entirety of your opponent's case.

Apart from that, just be yourself!

This paradigm is a little outdated in that I haven't gotten around to adding my prefs for other events so you can ask me in round. It hasn't changed much as far as LD or PF though.

Hi there, I've been judging debate (LD, PF, Congress, Parli, WSD) for about 6 years. I am tabula rasa when it comes to judging a round; don't expect me to know the topic. It is up to the debater to provide a framework that best upholds their arguments. I flow but if you spread, send me (and your opponent) your speech doc. That said, I don't want to look through pages and pages of your speech doc with a couple of words highlighted on each one. If you couldn't tell, I'm more familiar with traditional LD and have little experience in circuit debating. I weigh on framework and impact analysis. I like evidence and logical link chains with clear warrants. I like clash. I don't like falsified evidence, misleading evidence, disclosure theory or bad theory. I'm less familiar with K's, so make sure I can thoroughly understand them if you decide to run them. I'm pretty flay, so make your preferences accordingly. Please be respectful to one another. Being rude, disrespectful, racist, homophobic, and aggressive is not cool and will result in low speaks and/or loss.

Good luck everyone!

Top 5 Adjudication Accomplishments from most recent -> least recent:

HWS USUDC 2023, BP, USA, 19 rooms, SF Chair & GF Panel

Bates NAUDC 2023, BP, USA, 20 rooms, QF & SF Panel

UWODS Norams 2023, Norams style, Online, 31 rooms, OF + QF Chair & SF Panelist

HHIV 2022, BP, Canada, 19 rooms, QF Chair & SF Panel

Belgrade WUDC 2022, BP, Online, 91 rooms, OF Panel

Top 5 Speaking Accomplishments from most recent -> least recent:

Seattle IV, BP, Online, 9 rooms, Open Grand-Finals, 7th Open Speaker, 4th Breaking Team

Uhuru Worlds 2023, BP, Online, 63 rooms, Open Semi-Finalists, 10th Open Speaker, 8th breaking team

Lord Dorchester Cup 2023, CP, Canada, 8 rooms, Open Champions, 2nd Open Speaker, 2nd breaking team

Random Pro-Am V 2023, BP, Online, 9 rooms, Open Semi-Finalist, 11th Open Speaker, 7th breaking team

Zimbabwe Easters 2022, BP, Online, 18 rooms, Open Runners-Up (Grand Finalists), 30th Open Speaker, 16th breaking team

Experience

I have been judging debate in multiple formats for last 1 year. I have judged tournaments around the globe and have been judging Multiple WSDC, PF and LD and Policy tournaments at the school level.

Let me lay down a few general guidelines, which also broadly applicable to other debate formats as well

General

• Debate is a game so tech>truth (Your tech should be solid though, merely asserting something does not mean it's tech.)
• Speed: Try to speak at a reasonable speed, I do not need a lot of background and information, emphasize on important reasonings in your argument and that should be enough. Also, the faster you go the more likely I am to miss something, so do that at your own risk
• If you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read
• a concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"
• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defense isnt sticky

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to do
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

• Caveat on turns. I believe that If you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is otherwise I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
• case offense/ turns should be extended by author name, you'll probably get higher speaks if you do, it's a lot clearer for me
• do- “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
• Dont do "extend our link"
• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though

Evidence

• I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if the other team tells me to call for it
• If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
• I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
• You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked
• Exception- the wifi is bad/something is paywalled and you have to go around it

I have been debating and judging since 2013. As adjudicator I served as DCA for Spanish Worlds Ecuador 2021, PRE- EUDC Madrid 2021, Peruvian National Schools Debating Championship 2021 and other 20 tournaments. As a judge: I judged at AISDC 2021 and other 30 tournaments in the spanish circuit, judging relevant instances such as the Peruvian National Universities Debating Championship open final. Served as Chief Adjudicator for Colombian National Tournament (Format: Lincoln Douglas) Was granted the best speaker award at CMUDE (Spanish Worlds) in 2022, Madrid, Spain

Hello!

My pronouns are she/her.

I prefer a more traditional oriented style rather than fast spreading/ critiques.

email

estradai5511@yahoo.com

Hi! I have been judging for 3 years. I prefer to hear mechanizations and i appreciate a good framework and world-building. I also appreciate hearing different levels of impacting. I also encourage engagement and answering questions.

I am a career Adjudicator experienced in various formats of debating such as British Parliamentary, World Schools, Asian Parliamentary, Australs, Public Forum, Policy debate and several others.

Please be respectful to other debaters while speaking because I am very strict in implementing rules because I always want all debaters to feel comfortable in their debate rooms despite meeting people from different backgrounds and beliefs.

Hey! I debated Worlds pretty extensively at Greenhill (graduated in 2022) and am now an APDA and BP debater at Brown.

Four things for the round:

1. Speak at a good pace. Talking too fast is bad stylistically and strategically. I won’t hear your argument and you’ll sound rushed and panicked.
2. you need warrants!!! Why is an argument true, why does it have X impact, why does it weigh more? Don’t restate the same argument over and over, develop it in the round. I won’t do the work for you.
3. don’t be offensive. Be mindful of the arguments you run and the presence you have in the room. I will not want to vote for someone that yells at their opponents, yells at me about their opponents, says something rude or overly aggressive, or runs an argument that is offensive or discriminatory.
4. Also don't say your speech time "starts on your first word" because we all know that and its annoying (at least to me). just say how you want POIs and start your speech. If you still say this I will know you did not read my paradigm.........

I am Siddharth Kulshrestha from Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. Ever since my first year, I fell in love with debating and have never looked back.

My Debating Creds:

• 2x Semi-finalist at Intra-PEC
• Finalist at UIET PD '22
• Quarter Finalist at Pre-Trivium '22
• Adj at the Tamil Nadu State Championship
• Second Best Speaker at Intra-PEC '22

I am a Speech and Debate student at Cal State University Northridge, and I have greatly enjoyed judging both aspects of the activity. I look for confidence and courtesy, and appreciate the occasional bit of humor. I reward passionate, adept speakers. In your debate, please identify the most essential arguments with clear evidence and impact and at some point, condense your argument to a few key voting issues. And, of course, have fun!

Hello, my name is Eric Lee, and I'm currently in my second year of University at the University of Calgary. I'm relatively new to judging but have experience judging with the 37th Annual Stanford Invitational.


When judging a debate or speech, I examine the effectiveness of the speech as well as how persuasive the contestants are during the debate. I look for effective speaking skills and how they contribute to how convincing the argumentation is to both me and the other judges around me. I ask myself questions of whether the speech was convincing to not only myself but to the average listener or judge who may hear the arguments and how effectively they are communicated to decide whether a team or a contestant has managed to convince me of their way of thinking in the debate, and has my vote for the debate.

In short, I'm looking for Teams that can concisely communicate their stance and maintain that consistency when arguing and refuting points.

Complex argumentation can throw me off at times, which during the nature of a debate is alright, but simplifying complicated arguments will help me in the long run, and likewise, the judging. Just make sure you don't oversimplify your (or your opponent's arguments) down to their components (Basic Example: Music is just a bunch of people hitting instruments together and singing about stuff). I don't like that.

Email: lilarry037@gmail.com, feel free to reach out to me for specific or individual feedback, even after the tournament has ended - I'm always happy to help.

Did extemp and WSD.

WSDC Experience

IA and equity officer CWSDC High Schools Debating Championship 2022, Equity Officer HKDO 2021, Equity Officer CWSDC High Schools Debating Championship 2022, IA breaking judge DADC 2022(Debate Association Singapura Debating Championship) IA breaking judge 12th Hong Kong Debate Open 2021, breaking WHO 2021, IA Europen 2021 breaking judge, IA on Hong Kong Senior SDC 2021 broke to finals, IA on Asia Pacific 2021 broke to finals, Accepted as a judge on Macau WSDC 2021, Trainer and judge on WSDA Kranjska Gora 2021

Oxford WSDC 2021, Argo Open 2021 broke as IA, Online Dutch Debating Schools Championship 2021 broke to semis as IA, broke as IA to finals on Oldham Asian-Pacific league 2021, broke to finals as IA, judged Oldham international league 2021 as IA, broke as a IA to semifinals at Prague Debate Spring 2021,Winter Holidays Open broke as a judge every year attending- 2013-2020: judge finals 4 times, on Prague Debate Spring 2019 and 2014 broke as a judge, on Bratislava Schools Debating Championship broke as a judge 2017, on NSDC In Kopenhagen broke as a judge In 2018. Member of Council of methodology In CDS- creating materials for judges and judges workshops , actively judging regional and national tournaments In Croatia since 2012 and graduation. Judged WSDC Croatia all preliminary rounds in 2018

Active member of Council of methodology in Croatian debate society since 2016, actively coaching debate club Busmani/II.gymnasium since 2012, judging all national and regional tournaments since 2012, judge mentor since 2015, coordinator of judges workshops for all judges in Croatian debate society, and a member of team that is working on debate materials for IDEA NL.

Coach of debate club Bušmani s in 2nd Gymnasium, Zagreb since 2012. members from club every year since 2012 have at least one debater on WSDC Croatia team

Hello I'm Ritabrata a second year student, currently persuing an LLB degree. I have been involved in debating for the past three years extensively judging and speaking at British Parliamentary, American Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary and Policy Debates.

Some of my Top Judging Achievements include:

1) Harvard College World Schools Invitational 2022 Open Semis Panel

2) University of Pennsylvania World Schools 2021Open Grand Finals Panel

3) Oxford WSDC 2021 Open Octofinals Panel

As a speaker I have won the Yale IV Fall 2021 ( ESL ) and have spoken at outrounds at various tournaments across Asia North America and Europe

Few things to note:

1) I don't have a problem with people speaking at any speed but ideally upto 1.5x to 2x speed is convenient to track and follow

2) State the relevance, analyze and then subsequently weigh and impact arguments and not only assert them to maximize the full potential you can derive out of an argument

3) I'm open to theory arguments but they must be explained well with context and relevance

4) I'm a bit skeptical to kritiks but I'm open to your presentation and will evaluate it like all other arguments based of the analysis presented

5) I'm open to arguments across a spectrum of complexity and actively encourage new ideas

About Me:

I competed in Congressional Debate and World School’s Debate for Loyola High School. Currently, I am an undergraduate student at Pomona College.

For Congress:

Placement will be determined by your contribution to the dialogue. I value engagement with other senators and not just reading a pre-written speech. Do not read a constructive when someone has already established those same arguments. Unique additions to the dialogue that go unrecognized by other senators will still be respected in evaluation.

Stylistically, I am tolerant of a faster pace than most other Congress judges. Speak in a compelling manner that does not distract from your argumentation.

For WSD:

All arguments should function within the perspective of the world unless otherwise specified by the motion. Speakers should sign-post throughout the speech to help me have a clean evaluation of the round. New arguments in the third speech and beyond will not be evaluated.

WSD is the combination of both speaking style and argumentation. Winning on the flow should but does not always guarantee a vote in that side’s favor.

Please accept POIs throughout all applicable speeches and clearly establish a method through which you will acknowledge or deny points throughout your speech. POIs should not distract from the flow of the speech.

**Avoid snapping or nodding during your partner’s speech. It is unnecessary/distracting and will affect your speaks.

For Other Events:

Treat me like a lay judge.

Hi everyone, I’m Danny, and I’m somewhat new to judging but I will judge fairly. I’ve mainly done LD debates and I critique with framework in mind. I like hearing impact analysis and clash, and argue with the assumption that I have no prior knowledge to any given topic. I’m not too familiar with flow so if you could send me your docs, that’d be a huge help. I don’t want to hear falsified evidence, disclosure theory or other unfair or unkind forms of debate. I’m unfamiliar with K’s so lay them out clearly for me to understand. I’ve been using Yale’s Speaker Point Guide to score in case you have questions. Good luck and have fun!

I’m a co-owner of a speech and debate academy and head speech coach with kids who’ve done well nationally. I’m a professional actor and a member of SAG-AFTRA. I am also a licensed attorney in CA with a background in civil litigation. I enjoy traditional LD, especially helping students learn about different philosophies, effective research and writing and developing great analytical and persuasive skills.

What I Value: I value organized, clear and coherent debate with clash. I value traditional debate and especially appreciate creative but applicable values and value criteria. A thoughtful framework and clear organization is very important, both in the framework and argument. I really enjoy hearing well-structured cases with thoughtful framework and value/Value Criterion setups. I have seen cases decided on framework and I think it is very educational for students to learn philosophy and understand more of the philosophical underpinnings of resolutions and even democratic society. Don't forget to show me how you achieved your value better than your opponent, or even how your value and VC achieve your opponent's value better. Don't forget to show your organization of claim-warrants-impact in your arguments. I don't think solvency is necessary in LD, but if you have a persuasive way to bring it in, I am okay with it.

Speed: A proper pace and rhythm of speech is important. I am fine with coherent, articulate fast talking that has a purpose, but I really do not liked spreading. I find it and double-breathing very off-putting and contrary to the fundamentals of public speaking and good communication and the notion that debate should be accessible to all. Normal people sit bewildered watching progressive, circuit-level debaters, unable to comprehend them. Furthermore, it appears that progressive debaters typically give their cases via flash drive to judges and opponents who then read them on their computers during the round and during decision-making. This then becomes an exercise in SPEED READING and battle of the written cases.

Theory: I don’t know much about theory and all the tricks that have trickled down from policy into progressive LD. However, I am open-minded and if done intelligently, such as a valid and applicable spreading K, I believe it can be an interesting way to stop abusive practices in a round.

Final words: I think all of you should be very proud of yourselves for getting up there and doing this activity. Please remember that being courteous, honest and having values you follow are going to take you much further in life than unethical practices such as misrepresenting your evidence cards or being rude to your opponent. Good luck!

Greetings, debaters. I'm Anushikha, a 3rd year law student, and I've been associated with the activity of debating for some time now. I've judged several zonal and national qualifiers for the good people of AugLi Future Academy, and I'm super stoked to be judging the 37th Stanford Invitational this time around!

Following are some of my judging credentials -

1) RV Pre-ABP Debate Tournament - 2022 - BP - 5 in rounds chaired - NF Chair/OGF Panellist - Best Adjudicator 2) IIT Guwahati PD - 2023 - APD - Invited Adjudicator - 4 in-rounds chaired - Open Semifinals Chair/OGF Panellist - Highest tabbing IA
3) IIT Bombay BP Debate - 2022 - BP - 3 in-rounds Chaired - Open Semifinals Panellist - Overall 2nd Best Adjudicator
4) IIT Bombay BP Debate - 2023 - BP - 5 in-rounds Chaired - Open Semifinals Chair/OGF Panellist - Overall 4th Best Adjudicator
5) Derozio Memorial Debate - 2022 - 3v3 Australs - 4 in-rounds Chaired - Novice Finals Chair, Open Grandfinals Panellist - Overall 2nd Best Adjudicator

I don't have too many words of advice, so I'm just gonna say this much - don't take things too seriously, focus on making it a fun, and memorable experience for yourself. Debating is an activity that's supposed to bring utility to you, and not the other way round. Wins are great, and losses don't define you in the slightest. :)

she/her

Background: PhD in Computer Science at Texas A&M University.

WSDC:

• i like well-developed mechanisms with good structure + formatting. if i think mech 1 and mech 2 should be in argument 1 and not argument 2, i'll tell you it in feedback, i want your mechanisms to align well with the claim of the argument itself.
• do not extend through ink. develop and advance your previous speaker's arguments, please do not simply assert it and extend the same words exact words verbatim without acknowledging refutation, weighing, and additional info that i KNOW, affects your case.
• go slow, i don't want fast spreaders, i cannot write everything you want me to as fast as you can, i want you to be slow so i can write down everything you want me to. if your opponents are speaking at a more understandable pace then you, my flow will look different opp v. prop.
• WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH. tell me what their world looks like, tell me your world, tell me how your impacts affect the world, the narrated individual, the group of people, etc. i want coherent impacts that identify the 'long-term' and 'short-term' effects.
• take at least one poi in one of all the speeches you're given at MINIMUM. pois are important and you need to give your opponents a fair space to engage.

Please be respectful. Don't be rude.

Things I like:

• comparative weighing: take your opponent's case at its highest, refute the analysis from there and then cut off the analysis to the impact.
• non stock argument: make them unique, i like smart arguments that make big statements. this is what keeps debate passionate and exciting for debaters.
• be realistic, and don't make outrageously crazy arguments that do not make sense logically and rationally speaking, this is not pf.
• signposting: tell me where you are, it helps me track which arguments go with which clash, voter, etc. the ballot will look much better for you to win if your flow is clean and clear. if you tell me in the beginning of your speech that you're going to be doing offense, defense, ref, and weighing it should be in that order, if you change and shift that order throughout your speech, the flow will look very bad for your team.
• SLOW AND STEADY PACE: please go at a moderate pace, for the sake of everyone in the room. when i'm looking over the flow to make a decision, you want me to see your best examples, analysis, stylistic phrases, etc.

Things I don't like:

• being rude: everyone's human, they have feelings, your opponents are not the worst people in the world, treat them with manners and decent respect.
• new responses in the last few speeches: even if your opponents dont catch up your new evidence, new analysis, and new examples, i still won't put it in and evaluate it in the final ballot. if you put new argumentation in prop reply, i literally will erase it or cross it out on the flow.
• extending through ink or incomplete extensions
• swearing/cursing: please be respectful, i don't want to hear you cussing the other team out, ever.

Voting:

i want you to write out my rfd for me, tell me exactly what you're winning, what they're winning, etc. explain the weighing, how the debate progressed, and what slipped out of the debate. weighing is very important in my ballot, bc all of your analysis and argumentation needs to manifest into real-world aspects and events. when you extend your arguments through ink, they won't divide and disperse into different types of clashes in the round, well developed mechanisms get through in the end, even if they get into a lot of your speech time. if u bite the defense they give you in prop or opp 2nds once or twice that's fine, but if you consistently do it time and time again, that won't look good and i might even consider it conceded, so acknowledge their refutations, and then take the refs down.

debates are going to be close in most cases, i'll tell you when they are and if you want to avoid loosing based on a marginal difference in argumentation development, focus on balancing style and analysis concurrently. being a really stylistic speaker is okay, but at the end of the debate what i'm looking at on my flow will make 10x more sense with logic and good argumentation. if your case from prop 1 or opp 1 constructs a really speculative argument, tell me if that's because of some fiat or some background knowledge/context i need to hear about. this is wsdc, not pf so please make your arguments realistic.

i like teams that clearly relate their arguments back to the motion itself. teams will sometimes get fixated too much on their constructive material, which runs away from the heart of the motion. why is x term in the motion related to x argument in your case? reconstruction is important in seconds, if the recon is good in 2nds and is maintained consistently, i will prefer your team much more. be interactive your argument and their argument, it's smart to tell me how your arguments affect theirs, and then explain to me why its urgent to prioritize yours over theirs.

overall i'm super excited to hear your speeches and argumentation, and i hope your enjoy and learn lots from this exciting activity.

General

• Technicality over Truth.
• Speak as fast as you want. However, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll text you to go slower once and then it’s on you.
• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.
• I don't care if you sit or stand or wear formal clothes etc.
• Give trigger warnings.
• Absent any offense in the round, I'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics.

Case

• Do whatever you want to do.
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal should be discouraged and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower.
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded.
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability.

Summary

• Caveat on turns. I believe that if you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is, otherwise, I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
• Case offense/ turns should be extended by author name.
• Do - “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
• Don't - "extend our link"
• For an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended.
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice.
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before.

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though

Evidence

• I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
• If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
• I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
• You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked

Hello, I am pretty new to debate (Katy Taylor is my second tournament judging), so you need to make sure you are doing a good job explaining your points and giving voters in Final Focus, I will most likely be voting on that. Also, don't talk fast because then I will not understand what you are saying.

Diksha. My name means the initiation into knowledge. Debating for me is one thing that expands my horizons of knowledge and makes myself question the world around me. I'm a curious individual who wishes to keep learning and understanding world from better perspectives and I would love to hear your opinions as well so that I can also see the world from your perspective.

Entails my debating CV. Will see you around!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F3ybeHstXuHQdZRiu9k4g5mYJiDIzcSZCKTDNJv77ok/edit?usp=sharing

Hello , I have judged several rounds and have a good understanding of debate theory and strategy.

When it comes to judging, I prioritize clarity, organization, and persuasion. I believe that a debater's job is to present a clear and convincing argument, and it's my job as a judge to evaluate how well they accomplish that goal. In my view, the most persuasive arguments are those that are backed up by evidence and logical reasoning, and that address the core issues of the debate.

I value fairness and respect in the debate community, and I expect all debaters to adhere to those principles as well. I also believe that the debaters should be civil and professional, both in their speeches and in their interactions with one another. Any instances of disrespectful behavior will be taken into account in my decision.

In terms of argumentation, I am open to all kinds of arguments, including policy, value, and fact-based arguments. However, I am not interested in hearing arguments that are discriminatory or disrespectful. I will not tolerate any form of hate speech or discriminatory remarks.

When it comes to evidence, I prefer quality over quantity. I value well-researched and relevant evidence that directly supports a debater's argument. Evidence that is taken out of context, misused, or irrelevant will not carry weight in my decision.

In terms of style, I appreciate debaters who are confident, articulate, and poised. However, style alone will not win the round for a debater. Substance and sound argumentation are key.

Finally, I believe that every round is a learning experience, and I encourage debaters to ask questions and seek feedback after the round. I will do my best to provide constructive criticism and offer suggestions for improvement.

I look forward to a fair and respectful debate. Good luck to all debaters!

I have some judging experience, however consider me a lay judge while making arguments. Speak at a resonable speed in order to make your speech more comprehensible.

General

• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc, all that doesn’t matter to me
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defense isnt sticky
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me
• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to d
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability

Summary

• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blippy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though

✨Hey hey hey! ✨

My name is Aimee Stachowiak, and I am currently attending the University of Chicago (with my older sister Nicole if you are a veteran world schools debater). I debated for Greenhill in World Schools Debate my entire high school career. Notably, my teammates and I have won NSDA, NDCA twice, TFA state, Harvard Westlake, Blake twice, as well as multiple other tournaments. 

✨Things I will consider ✨

In debate, both teams are going to have arguments that they are going to almost certainly win. The point of the debate then is to tell me why your argument is so important and impactful that it will win you the round. Explain why your argument is better than your opponents best argument. 

Make sure your arguments have diverse links and that those links make sense. The more links you have, the stronger your argument is meaning it will be harder to take down. Do not make jumps in your argumentation, or assume that I will understand the implicit link. 

Give me realistic impacts. Tell me why I should care about the argument you just presented, why this argument is so critical it can be the reason I vote for you. 

Point out contradictions, give me multiple reasons why an argument doesn't stand, attack the warrant, attack the impact, turn the argument against your opponents, take your opponents at their highest ground -- all of these things make the debate more interesting. 

There is a difference between extending an argument and repeating an argument. When you take an argument down the bench, develop it by illustrating the impact to me, start to weigh it against other arguments, etc. 

Please do your research. This can help you find interesting new subs, good statistics, and more. Stay up to date with the news -- impromptu motions can be based around current topics of discussion.  However, don't just quote examples. Explain the incentives of actors, why this example applies to your argument, what this example proves, etc. 

Please ask and take pois -- I was guilty of not asking that many but honestly it is fun and what makes the debate so engaging. 

At the end of the debate, narrow it down to the 1-2 most crucial points. I essentially want your reply to be the RFD I would give at the end of the round. A lot of weighing should be in this speech. Tell me why you are winning. I cannot vote for you just because you say your opponents are worse. 

Finally, please be considerate and courteous to your teammates, opponents, and any spectators. 

✨Thank you! Good luck! ✨

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

Please signpost, list your arguments, cross-engage between benches, take at least one POI, and make sure all diagonals are covered. Thank you and God bless you.

I judge debates in accordance with the rules of the specific debate format. Generally, I prioritise logic, analysis and strategic choice of arguments while adjudicating.

I would like you to really focus on communicating with me rather than just on saying what you have to say. Use common examples and make sure that I can really understand what the impacts mean to me or could mean to an individual in the world.

I am looking for you to really focus on prioritizing the arguments and impacts that matter most. Many arguments aren't completely won or lost as there may be harms and benefits to both sides. It's your job to tell me why those specific harms or benefits are impactful enough for my vote.

Use overt organization. Signpost. Be cordial.

Judging experience: 4 rounds, Public Forum in NSDA