In a debate round, I prefer to see a good amount of evidence followed by logic as to why this evidence is important. Make sure your speech is at a good pace so I can understand the arguments you are making.

Public Forum paradigm

A few remarks:

1. If it's important to my RFD, it needs to be in both summary and final focus, especially if it's offense. A few exceptions to this rule:
1. Rebuttal responses are "sticky". If there's a rebuttal response that was unaddressed, even if it wasn't in your opponents' summary or FF, I will still consider it against you.
2. If a central idea is seemingly conceded by both teams, it is true in the round. For example, if most of the debate is on the warrant level, and the impacts are conceded, I will extend the impacts for you even if you don't explicitly, because this allows you time to more adequately analyze the clash of the debate.
2. Especially on framework, you have to do the work for me. I won't evaluate arguments under a framework, even if you win the framework; you have to do the evaluation/weighing.
3. Warrants are extremely important; you don't get access to your evidence unless you give me warrants.
4. If you are non-responsive, I am fine with your opponents "extending through ink" -- in order to get defense, you need to be responsive.
5. Feel free to make whatever arguments you want.

I can be interventionist when it comes to evidence; I will call for it in three scenarios:

1. You read evidence that I have also read, and I think you misrepresented the evidence.
2. Your evidence is called into question/indicted.
3. You read evidence that sounds really sketchy.

Speaker Points

What matters, in rough order of importance:

• Ethical treatment of evidence, both yours and your opponents'. (I have given 20s to teams misusing evidence in the past, and I'll gladly do so again--don't tempt me.)
• The presence of weighing/narrative.
• Nuanced, well-warranted analytical argumentation.
• Well-organized speeches. (Road maps optional; Signposting non-optional)
• Appealing rhetorical style.
• In-round courtesy and professionalism.

Email Jororynyc@gmail.com
Perry Hs
UW
Assistant LD coach at Peninsula, 2023-Present

Cleared at the Toc.
Alot of the way I think comes from Amber Kelsie, Jared Burke, Tay Brough and Raunak Dua - LD thoughts from Elmer Yang and Gordon Krauss.

Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some Affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: I think the neg should win why fairness outweighs whatever Disad the Aff has - The Aff needs to have a counter interp that defends a type of model of debate and what the role of the neg is.

Slow down and tell me how to evaluate the debate. I wont flow until 1NC case so I can read evidence. I also have no problem telling you I did not understand what you said if its not explicit by the last speech.

Hello, my name is Beck Arnold (they/them). I'm a former Lincoln-Douglas debater, Siena College graduate, and current Public Forum debate coach.

Email Address: arnoldr898@gmail.com

General:

• Debate is, first and foremost, about having fun!
• Please keep track of time, as I will be doing the same.
• In virtual debate tournaments, please keep your camera on as much as possible. Wifi and connection issues are understandable.
• Speak clearly, at whichever speed feels most comfortable to you.
• Please be polite to everyone in the round.
• If you express beliefs which are racist, homophobic, sexist, or otherwise bigoted during a round, that is a huge loss of speaker points and an automatic loss.
• If you plan to discuss heavy content, please be considerate and give a content warning. I am comfortable hearing about heavy topics, but I also believe it is basic politeness to warn before discussing potentially triggering content.
• I do not disclose, but I will provide constructive feedback at the end of the round.

Public Forum:

• In public forum debate, please crystalize at the end of the round. Tell me why you won the round.
• I do not like when cross ex is dominated by one side. Please do not talk over or interrupt the other speakers. Please ask questions which poke holes in your opponent's case. Answers should be concise.
• Signposting and numbering your arguments is greatly appreciated.
• Please have cards ready in the event that someone calls for it. Paraphrasing is acceptable but you need to have text evidence ready to go if necessary. Send evidence quickly!
• Your cards should have effective highlighting.
• Email chains are not necessary, but if you share evidence with your opponent via email, add my email so I can view the evidence as well.
• Do not introduce new arguments in the Final Focus; you will lose points.
• Weigh your impacts, harms, etc throughout the round, not just at the very end.

Speaker Points:

25: You were rude and unprofessional.

26: Below average. You were unprepared, or did not have a cohesive argument at all.

27: Average. You're a pretty good debater! You made a cohesive argument, spoke clearly, and were prepared.

28: Above average. You're an excellent debater, and likely beat most of the teams you come across. You'd probably beat me in a debate.

29: You're probably one of the best debaters out there. You have a strong set of arguments, you weighed impact effectively, you were prepared with strong cards, etc.

30: Very rare level of debate skill. You went above and beyond.

Hi! My name is Shannon Babu, and I'm a parent judge from Concord, MA. This school year (2024-25), I am primarily judging speech events, but I also judge public forum. I am a high school biology teacher, so I love to see your clear thesis, your logical process, and a nice tight summary in your speech. My primary concerns in public forum are your logical process: linkages, evidence, weighing, etc.

For speech:

Extemp
Here's some ways to get a high ranking from me:
-Answer the question
-Content > delivery, but doing both is always better. Maintain a slower pace so I can actually flow
-Clever/unique substructure and diversified arguments.
-Answering NO (or whatever is not the obvious answer)
-I’ll generally reward creativity.

In general for public forum:

I expect you to keep your own time, but I'm happy to keep time for you - just ask.

It's ok to be nervous, and it's ok if your voice shakes - that means you care about what you're doing! We're all here to learn and help each other, even through a competitive environment.

You may sit or stand, whatever makes you the most comfortable.

You may speak relatively quickly with me, but please don't spread. My ears are only human.

I will allow a few extra seconds for a debater to finish a sentence, finish a question, or finish an answer.

If you have any questions for me during the debate, please ask! It's ok to ask questions between process steps, and asking is ALWAYS better than not asking.

I have the following non-negotiable expectation:

*treat your teammate and opponents with respect and dignity (polite body language, mindful utterances/whispering, professional language, etc).

I'm excited to hear your arguments - I know how much work goes into your preparation, and I'm here to support your process!

A little bit about me: I coach for Millburn High School in New Jersey. I competed on the circuit in high school and college.

I do my very best to be as non-interventionist as possible, but I know some students like reading judge's paradigms to get a better sense of what they're thinking. I hope that the below is helpful :).

Overall: You can be nice and a good debater. :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your Parliamentarian/ Judge in Congressional Debate:

- I am a sucker for a well-executed authorship/ sponsorship, so please don't be afraid to give the first speech! Just because you don't have refutation doesn't mean it isn't a good speech. I will be more inclined to give you a better speech score if you stand up and give the speech when no one is willing to do so because it shows preparedness.

- Bouncing off of the above bullet point, two things I really dislike while at national circuit tournaments are having no one stand up to give the earlier speeches (particularly in out rounds) and one-sided debate. You should be prepared to speak on either side of the legislation. You're there to debate, so debate. I'm much more inclined to rank you higher if you flip and have fluency breaks than if you're the fourth aff in a row.

- Asking the same question over and over to different speakers isn't particularly impressive to me (only in extreme circumstances should this ever be done). Make sure that you are catering the questions to the actual arguments from the speech and not asking generic questions that could be asked of anyone.

- Make my job easy as the judge. I will not make any links for you; you need to make the links yourself.

- Warrants are so important! Don't forget them!

- If you are giving one of the final speeches on a piece of legislation, I expect you to weigh the arguments and impacts that we have heard throughout the debate. Unless there has been a gross negligence in not bringing up a particular argument that you think is revolutionary and changes the debate entirely, you shouldn't really be bringing up new arguments at this point. There are, of course, situations where this may be necessary, but this is the general rule of thumb. Use your best judgment :).

- Please do your best to not read off of your pad. Engage with the audience/ judges, and don't feel as though you have to have something written down verbatim. I'm not expecting a speech to be completely flawless when you are delivering it extemporaneously. I historically score speeches higher if delivered extemporaneously and have a couple of minor fluency lapses than a speech read off of a sheet of paper with perfect fluency.

- Be active in the chamber! Remember, the judges are not ranking students based upon who is giving the best speeches, but who are the best legislators overall. This combines a myriad of factors, including speeches, questioning, overall activity, leadership in the chamber, decorum, and active listening (i.e. not practicing your speech while others are speaking, paying attention, etc.) Keep this in mind before going into a session.

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- I rank based on who I think are the overall best legislators in the chamber. This is a combination of the quality of speeches, questioning, command of parliamentary procedure, preparedness, and overall leadership and decorum in the chamber.

Let me know if you have any questions! :)

Here are some things to consider if I'm your judge in Public Forum:

- Please add me to the email chain if you have one: jordybarry@gmail.com

- I am really open to hearing almost any type of argument (except K's, please don't run K's in PF), but I wouldn’t consider myself a super techy judge. Do your thing, be clear, and enjoy yourselves!

- Please debate the resolution. It was written for a reason.

- It's important to me that you maintain clarity throughout the round. In addition, please don’t spread. I don’t have policy/ LD judging experience and probably won’t catch everything. If you get too fast/ to spreading speed I’ll say clear once, and if it’s still too fast/ you start spreading again, I’ll stop typing to indicate that I’m not getting what you’re saying on my flow.

- Take advantage of your final focus. Tell me why I should vote for you, don't solely focus on defensive arguments.

- Maintain organization throughout the round - your speeches should tell me what exact argument you are referring to in the round. Signposting is key! A messy debate is a poorly executed debate.

- I don't weigh one particular type of argument over another. I vote solely based on the flow, and will not impose my pre-existing beliefs and convictions on you (unless you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, or xenophobic). It's your show, not mine!

- Please please please don't speak over the top of one another. This being said, that doesn't mean you have a right to monopolize the questioning time, but there is a nice way to cut someone off if they're going too long. Use your best judgment. Don't cut someone off two seconds after they start answering your question.

- Be polite!

- Make my job easy. I should not have to (and will not) make any links for you. You have to make the link yourselves. There should be a clear connection to your impacts.

- Weighing impacts is critical to your success, so please do it!

Any questions, please feel free to ask! Have fun and good luck!

Please put me on the email chain: thirdnegativeconstructive@gmail.com

I have a problem with writing paradigms. I'll be more than happy to answer questions before the round starts.

Update for 24-25 IP Topic: Let's be real, this topic sucks. Neither me nor you care about Intellectual Property and most of us actively break copyright law doing debate research. Because nobody has ever written why patents are key to solve nuclear war i am much more open to both aff and neg teams not having as specific of evidence. If you are a novice on this topic i swear its not normally this bad of a resolution.

-- Top Level --

I am a tech-over truth judge and am more than willing to evaluate almost any argument provided there is a claim and a warrant. I will be incredibly focused on the round and flowing as debaters who put in the effort to excel in this activity deserve a judge who will put that same effort into their decision. I love debaters who incorporate humor during the round i think it lightens up an activity that can often be overly serious; debate is a game and we should all be having fun playing it. Be respectful of your partner and your fellow debaters. I am happy to answer questions about my decision. I come to my ballot through as little judge intervention as possible (which means even if your factually correct you have to explain out what you mean).

The more specific list below is probably not necessary to read as i am just a 17-year-old from Dallas who loves debate, but I like to give the aff something to read while they let the neg prep the 1nc

-- Case --

Not much to say. I respect negative teams that have things to say against case and when they do it really lets me buy the CP or Da turning case. Aff teams should try not to read new cards in the 2ac on case unless its necessary.

-- Da's --

My favorite type of debate argument. I personally think that most Neg strategies could benefit from less spamming one card CP's and condenses down into Da's. Against more off i always recommend straight turning or impact turning their DA's

-- Cp's --

On judge kick, I presume no judge kick unless I'm told differently before the 2nr, i will default to 2ar's saying no judge kick if its only brought up in the 2nr unless the neg has a really good reason why i shouldn't.

-- K --

I am a policy debater who has sadly grown to love the K. I much rather teams don't just read down their blocks but i love a good debate on the K. I think K debaters get too scared of clash in rounds and thus hide what they are saying through a wall of text. A good K round will win high speaker points.

-- T --

I love T debate and think its underutilized. I will vote on T and default to competing interps. I don't really care what the violation is as long as i know they violate it and that's bad for x, y, and z reasons.

-- Theory --

i WILL vote on theory, tech over truth. You say condo bad they fail to answer, win.

-- Influences --

I have had the good fortune of meeting and having my thoughts influenced by tons of people and here is a non-exhaustive list: My hero Camden Coale, The goat Lillian Goetz, Toby Whisenhunt, The Greenhill Machine, The Jesuit Team, and the wonderful people at the Georgetown Debate Camp and Michigan Debate Camp. Yall rule!

Background/Experience:

Dallas Highland Park Policy Debate 2022-2024

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

Put me on the chain---barringtonspeechdocs@gmail.com. Use the format "[Tournament]---[Round #]---[AFF Team] vs [NEG Team]."

LD for most of my career. TOC 2x. 2N at camp, and I think like one.

The AFF must defend a shift from the status quo. The only role of the negative is to negate the AFF. Good for process CPs and the politics DA. Insert that quote about science fiction and blank checks.

All arguments are probabilistic and start at 100% of what is warranted. Dropping a uniqueness card that says Trump has a 52% chance of winning means that there's a 100% chance that Trump has a 52% chance of winning, not that he 100% wins. This means that the link matters more than uniqueness, and zero risk is possible.

Instruction prevents intervention. Frame through certainty, necessity, and sufficiency. I'm a sucker for try or die.

Aesthetics matter. Ugly docs and ugly cards will hurt speaks. Ugly means a lack of standardization. Avoid multiple citation styles, fonts and highlighting colors.

I will not reconstruct the flow post-debate or backflow arguments I could not understand. Slowing down, signposting, numbering arguments, and using micro-tags on the line-by-line will greatly increase the chances that you'll be happy with the decision.

I am a parent judge.

Last Substantially Updated 10/02/24

"There can be no give up" - Martin Osborn

secondnegativeconstructive@gmail.com

Firstly - all the stories you've heard are greatly exaggerated.

Secondly - I haven't earned the right to write out a multi-paragraph explanation of my thoughts on debate. Just know I love the activity and I love hard-working debaters and I will try my hardest to make a useful and helpful RFD. I'm better for debates where teams technically and intelligently go for stupid arguments than when teams poorly go for smart arguments. I've never understood saying "I don't like X debate" because I think all forms of policy debate are engaging when done correctly and that the mentality of "X debate is bad' only serves to alienate and divide the community. In other words, I'll vote for and against framework.

Lastly - If you so desperately need to know my thoughts here is a list of the paradigms of people who have influenced my view of the game and have helped to form my ideological predispositions. I will try to judge in a similar fashion to them -

Adrienne Brovero

Dan Lingel

Tracy McFarland

Toby Whisenhunt

David Coale

Martin Osborn

Geoff Lundeen

Jared "RA" Adam

BK

Johnnie Stupek

Dr. Malsin

Lillian Goetz

James "My name is Layton stop calling me James" Braziel (pronounced Bruh-Zil)

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coatesdj@gmail.com

2024-5 rounds (as of 1/11): 43

Aff winning percentage: .535

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OVERVIEW

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

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

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

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

That said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. You should cite authors by name. "Stanford," as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Stanford matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about border security to "Stanford." "According to Professor Dirzo of Stanford" (yes, he is THE expert on how border controls affect wildlife) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Stanford" and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League or equivalent scholars. I've never heard an "according to the University of Arizona" citation from any of you even though that's the institution doing the most work on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases.Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I think it is especially important to make sure cases are comprehensible. I look at speech docs if something only if evidence is questioned. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed. Please keep all this in mind if you normally utilize speedy delivery.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing and I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

this is my first time judging so please speak slowly and clearly

articulate your arguments and provide logical warranting

do not read technical arguments (kritiks, theory, etc.)

please be respectful to your opponents

good luck!

Name: Chris Gao School Affiliation: thomas jefferson High School of science and technology. Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 4. Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0 Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 0 Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 0 If you are a coach, what events do you coach? What is your current occupation? GIS Specialist I am a trained geographer/computer scientist and I value accurate evidence, clear argument, well-structured cases, and explicit weighing. I also believe that basic courtesy is important even in a very tense debate environment. And I don't believe dodging opponents' questions are a good strategy to win the debate. Please come in prepared!

My Background: I am from India, I'm in 11th Grade, I have participated in numerous debates. I can be consider a flayjudge.

I appreciate engaging and respectful debates. Any sort of rude or offensive language will lose you points. Please be respectful and remember this is just a debate.

Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. Without evidence your points are invalid and will not be considered by me.

Speak at a moderate pace, I will be taking notes, voice modulation is key to keep me interested. Speak clearly and loudly.

Always have your camera on. If there are internet issues, inform me, that's fine. I'm always open to any other questions too.

Rebuttal Speech: Make sure to do a line by line analysis, don't drop any points from the constructive case that will lose you points. But you can be creative, if you have your own style, I'm open to it.

Summary Speech: Make sure to extend your case. The rest is up to you.

Final Focus: Frontline your major points. Impact weightage is important too. But if you do, evidence. Don't bring up any new points.

Overall, I will be unbiased and open to questions or doubts. Just try to convince me. Good luck!

1. I am fine with whatever speed you speak as long as you are clear
2. I would prefer if impacts are weighed clearly so it is clear what you want me to base my decision on
3. I have knowledge about the resolution, however I will only look at things that are mentioned by the debaters and not other research I may have done prior
4. Do not bring up new points during the summary or final focus
5. Make sure to carry your main arguments through each round (mention them in each round)

A little bit about me

1. I have been doing PF debate for about 2 and a half years
2. I am currently a debater in HS category

If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round

Basically, I judge by the overall evaluation. I will weigh both style and arguments. I would like you to ask relevant and effective questions during the crossfire and don't waste time by repeating the same question. I weigh both evidence and analytics. I also would like to see you extend your arguments in either your rebuttal or summary speeches. I will flow the round so I can tell if you drop any arguments.

From my perspective, here is the key to winning a round of debate: smooth flow, confident and clear speech, and well-organized arguments supported by both evidence and analytics.

This is my 4th year as a parent judge. I do flow the rounds.

Speak clearly and reasonably paced. Extend arguments in your speeches. If opponent concedes, do call it out for me to count it

All the best!

Hello there. (Congrats if you get that reference)

Here's my email for the email chain or evidence doc: ej82669@gmail.com

I'm a sophomore UIUC debater who debated PF in high school.

If you’re here for speech, jump all the way down to the bottom. I’m sorry :((

There's sections for debate, PF, LD, and speech.

DEBATE

As a judge, consider me tech over truth. However, I coach middle schoolers and believe that debate is an educational event. Good research is a big part of that, so I won’t buy problematic arguments that seem to have no basis or understanding of the current situation. (eg US should increase military intervention for orientalist reasons) Otherwise, clean voters and collapses will always win me over. If this doesn’t happen, I will pick apart the flow (against my will), and no one is ever happy when the judge is forced to intervene.

That being said, I am also a debater, so I’ll vote on dropped arguments, dropped weighing, dropped framing, dropped whatever. I’ve always been a second speaker and love listening to rebuttals dumping 7 warranted responses to every single contention (it would be hypocritical for me not to). If there is genuinely no defense or clash, I default neg.

Lastly, if you run a T or K in a JV or novice division, unless it is a T against blatant abuse in the round, I will immediately drop you and your speaks.

Evidence: Know the NSDA and CHSSA rules on evidence.

NSDA Evidence Rules

CHSSA Debate Rules and Regulations

If the opponents call you out on a card you definitely cut 30 seconds ago, I will allow evidence challenges or for them to clown you in all the rest of the speeches for bad evidence. I consider preventing access to a requested card as nonexistent evidence and will absolutely rules in favor of an evidence challenge in that context. I have no tolerance for distortion of the card or dates. Regardless of a challenge, I will drop the card on my flow.

General Points (that I will potentially drop your speaks for):

- Time: Time yourself. If you make the mistake of using a timer and start talking over the ringing, I will drop your speaks, because not only do you know you are going over time, you are consciously choosing to ignore it. Otherwise, I will be running a stopwatch and will put up my phone when you are going over. I will allow you to finish your point, but will not flow any new points.

- Speed: I can handle and almost prefer moderate speed. I can handle spreading, but you must be CLEAR and ENUNCIATE. Otherwise, expect to send me and your opponents a speech doc. If I catch you manipulating it, I will drop your speaks faster than you call your opponents for dropped arguments you didn’t actually make.

- Organization: Off-time roadmaps are great, but if its “I will start on my opponent’s first contention on small businesses, extend the turn, refute their second contention on policing, address the framework…” then no, they aren’t great. Signposting is a MUST. If I lose you on the flow, then good luck extending arguments that I can’t find.

- Clash: If you don’t clash, don’t expect speaks. Debate is the speaking event where opponents actually interact with each other, so I would like to see interaction.

- Weigh: Weigh…please, especially if you have a framework. Saying timeframe, magnitude, and scope is not enough. You can just choose one, and explain why it matters + how it links in to your opponent’s impacts. (eg If mass extinction occurs, you can’t have an economy.)

- Crossfire/Cross-Examination: I don’t flow crossfire/cross-examination. If something important happens, bring it up in your speech. That being said, I don’t tolerate aggressively speaking over the person or using cross as speech time. Cross can get heated, but there’s a difference between yelling at the other person.

I get this is a lot, but the tl;dr is be respectful to your opponent and me. The common courtesies in debate are to make it fun for everyone. For those of you who like being mean >:(, I give out low-speak wins pretty frequently anyway.

Public Forum: (my favorite :D )

Chances are, I have thoroughly researched and debated the topic you are doing, so I will know if you don’t have links or are making things up. That being said, I have a lot higher tolerance for “analysis” or “general knowledge”. I apologize ahead of time if you get an entire paragraph of rfd. I’ve primarily competed in PF, so I will definitely have opinions.

Besides the general time yourself, signpost, be nice in cross, and speed reminders, here are a few things I look for:

- Collapsing: While my fatal flaw is going for all of the 6 contentions on both sides of the flow, I’d rather you consolidate and do voters, especially in FF. Most of the time, I just vote off the later speeches. I will silently cry if you go line-by-line in FF.

- Frontlining: I expected second rebuttal to frontline. I believe defense is sticky, but a brief extension of it every time is best.

- Weighing: Weighing slaps. Enough said.

- New Arguments/Responses: That’s a no-no in 2^nd summary and FF. I will not flow it.

- Progressive Arguments: I am a sucker for topical Ks. I believe Ts are to prevent abuse and improve the debate space, but will not vote on friv T. Because of this, if you run friv T to win a round in JV/novice on a new non-circuit debater, I am not voting for that.
(I love the Robert Chen K though)

- Plans: No…I will drop them.

Lincoln Douglas:

I'm only getting used to college LD, but I work with novice LDers so I will also know if your arguments are very strange, to a lesser degree. Besides the general time yourself, signpost, be nice in cross, and speed reminders, I have stolen the following things from my coach’s paradigm (thanks schletz):

- New Arguments/Responses: No new arguments in 1NR and 2AR. I will not flow it. I'm fine with evidence though.

- Theory: Theory works, but I won’t vote on frivolous theory used to avoid responding to your opponent’s argument (especially not if you unabashedly break norms yourself). I view theory as a way of preventing abuse in the debate space and that it should only be used as such. I believe in RVIs so feel free to run them in response.

- Frameworks/VC: They slap. If you provide and defend one but don’t use it, I will evaluate it based on what vague instruction you’ve given me on how to evaluate using the framework…which probably won’t end well. I cannot emphasize enough: YOUR IMPACTS SHOULD ALIGN WITH YOUR FRAMEWORK.

- Kritiks + Phil:I love and appreciate them. Please slow down a bit if it’s super dense.

Speech

I love you guys…I promise. Most of my friends do speech.

A few warnings:

- Respectfulness: I don’t tolerate horsing around or loudly speaking during other competitors’ speeches. Whispering is okay, but do anything more disruptive and I will drop your speaks.

- Timing: Please time yourself. While I will be running a stopwatch, I am terrible at giving time signals. I will allow a stopwatch or someone else’s phone. Having a friend give time signals works too. Refer to tournament rules on grace periods.

- My instinct is to take notes while you’re speaking, so if I don’t look at you, I am so sorry. If I am judging you for IX or NX, your content will be scrutinized because I have a little too much background knowledge on politics.

If you’ve made it to the bottom, have fun and be a cool person. :)

Feel free to ask me questions. I like those.

I am a parent judge with some experience in judging public forum debates. I would like the teams to be respectful especially in crossfire rounds. I like logical arguments in all rounds of the debate. I would also like teams to be well organized in terms of presenting their ideas.

Lay judge, limited judging experience. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

NO SHIRT

NO SHOES

NO BALLOT

hey i'm jae! formerly a debater at torrey pines. debated four years pf nat circ and briefly coached. i've gotten some bids, qualled toc, and made late outrounds at a couple of nat circ tournaments.

if you have any questions (in round or debate in general) or need/want any help, feel free to ask anytime.

please add jnkim@ucdavis.edu to the email chain; send case/ev docs before round

(update for '24-'25 season): haven't competed in ~2 years so my topic knowledge is subzero. please note i'm also quite washed. thanks.

defaults:

- comparative worlds

- competing interps > reasonability

- theory/t > k > case

- drop the debater > drop the arg

- no rvis

- fairness > education

- text > spirit

- presume first speaking team

general round stuff:

at its core, i genuinely believe debate is simply just a game and y'all should play however you want to win; that means i will literally vote off of anything. if you've been itching to run spark or death good, go ahead this is your chance.

i flow/tabula rasa, disclose, and will also disclose speaks if you ask; i know what it's like to get 4-2 screwed, i'm pretty generous with speaks.

read and wear whatever you'd like. flip/preflow before the round. fast evidence exchanges. i don't flow anything over time. you can do flex prep, tag team cross, skip grand, etc.

feel free to crash out and do whatever you want in cross, i literally don't care and im probably not paying attention anyways. be as aggressive as you want. swearing throughout the round is fine by me.

i am fine with speed, but depending on the time of day my ability to keep up varies. pref dont spread. SLOW DOWN WHEN SWITCHING BETWEEN PAGES/SPOTS ON THE FLOW. please give me speech docs and slow down a bit in the back half.

asking questions after the round is fine. post-rounding is fine if time permits. im never perfect and this honestly helps me improve as a judge.

i hate intervening. as a result, you can lie, read false evidence, etc. if it is not called out by your opponents, i will not do anything. in my view, my role as a judge is not to be a referee nor an educator (which is a coach's job), but rather to be a blank slate in the back of the room. all the "educating" will happen AFTER the round, but i see no need and have no desire to meddle with the content of the round. the only caveat is against anything remotely __ist. that earns you an L20 and report to tab.

pls don't fist fight each other either, as funny as that would be i don't want to be held liable.

round specifics:

everything must be responded to in the next speech or its conceded, besides constructive. defense is never sticky.

signpost PLEASE

weigh weigh weigh. link comparison. warrant comparison. i vote for the team with the strongest link into the strongest impact (clean pieces of offense). i like voting on turns but they must be weighed and have impacts. pre-req weighing is the best but do it right.

high threshold for extensions. i don't acknowledge blippy extensions on anything. link and impact extension on any piece of offense in summary and ff.

in order for defense to be terminal, it only has to be implicated as such and be resolved against frontlines. if these criteria are not met, i will assume there is a small but nonzero risk of a link story happening, which bears the risk of allowing your opponents the ability to win the round off of the framing debate and a risk of a link.

if you want to concede defense to kick out of the turns, you MUST do it the speech right after the turns are read and must point out the specific piece of defense you concede/explain why it takes out the turn.

regardless of paraphrasing, you MUST have cut cards or you're capped at max 26.5 speaks for being cringe

if a team thinks they are getting absolutely nuked and forfeits prior to grand cross, i’ll give them double 30s

if your opponent has no path to the ballot, invoke a TKO and you win with 30s

trigger warnings:

the increased normalization of mental health issues seem to go hand in hand with therapeutic language becoming common use words. trigger is used in counseling all the time to discuss external causes of internal problems but is now synonymous with any sort of emotional reaction, and often used in a mocking way. unfortunately, it has actually become harder to express the difference between regular human experiences and mental health problems. THEREFORE, I DON'T REQUIRE TRIGGER WARNINGS AND WILL NEVER OPT OUT OF ANY ARGUMENT. trigger warnings have been widely misused and weaponized in debate to make me feel comfortable enough to not care about them. i won't penalize the absence of trigger warnings nor hack for them either. feel free to run trigger warning good/bad theory if you really care.

framework:

go crazy. i ran a lot of framework when i debated. structural violence is my comfort zone. default util.

general progressive debate:

first and foremost, you MUST send everyone a speech doc if you're reading any progressive arguments in the round. second, i don't believe in limiting what debaters can run so i'm more than willing to evaluate any progressive args you want to make. but the more complex you get, the less likely i'm able to evaluate it correctly. highly pref shell format over paragraph. i don't care if you read friv shells, it's probably funny. default to competing interps bc making me evaluate under reasonability will make nobody in the round happy.

theory:

i'm relatively familiar with theory. i have experience with disclosure, paraphrasing good/bad, trigger warning, topicality, and covid. my personal history has seen me running theory more than being on the receiving end.

if you are in varsity at a TOC bid tournament, i will by NO MEANS evaluate a "we do not understand theory/theory excludes me because i don't know how to debate it" response. do not enter the varsity division of tournaments if you are unwilling to handle varsity level argumentation.

kritiks:

im wayyy less familiar with K's than i am with anything else so flesh out and explain your K's well since im not the best judge for those types of rounds. im most familiar with non-t identity K's like model minority, hit quite a few performance fem K's throughout my career, and have a minimal, basic understanding of cap and setcol K's. if you are going to swing wildly outside of the pf meta, and read phil-rooted args, i am going to be confused and will require a lot of slow explanation. make sure you're extending the rotb, alt, link-- every part of the K, in order to garner offense.

**update to my understanding there's a proliferation in the amount of K's being read on the circuit. that's fine, just please keep in mind i haven't heard a K debate in over 2 years, so my ability to evaluate them is less reliable now than it ever was. be cautious when running them.

remember to have fun and make friends!

for more info, my judging philosophy/paradigm was inspired by Dylan Beach, Katheryne Dwyer, Skylar Wang, and Eli Glickman. also refer to the beginning of this guy's paradigm

TLDR: flow judge, I want to judge a slow-ish round (~200 WPM or less), please collapse and weigh, I like unique arguments and impact turns :)

NOVICE: Relax and try your best! I won't be super technical, so don't worry about strictly following and understanding everything in my paradigm. Focus on presenting your arguments clearly and try to respond to all of your opponent's attacks during your speech!

I prefer SpeechDrop over email chain for sharing docs.

Background

I'm a current student at the University of Illinois studying computer science and philosophy. I competed in PF for Adlai E. Stevenson (2020 - 2023). This is my second year judging PF (everything from locals to natcirc finals). I've also judged trad LD, speech, and congress.

Style Preferences

I can judge speed assuming you send docs (marked!), but I don't want to unless you're exceptionally clear. I don't like super fast rounds because they encourage debaters to give blippy warrants and lazy weighing.

Summary + Final Focus: Follow an “our case, weighing, their case” structure. I’m not a fan of structuring the debate in terms of “voters issues.”

COLLAPSE ON MAX ONE CONTENTION AND/OR ONE TURN. The less offense I have to evaluate, the more confident I will be in my decision.

QUALITY > QUANTITY. I’m not a fan of spamming lots of one-line blips in rebuttal and calling it a day. I will not implicate/warrant out arguments for you.

I think unique arguments and impact turns are great! I usually give high speaks (29+) to teams that innovate and go outside the meta.

How to Win My Ballot

Step 1: Don’t be a bad person (_ist, _phobic, etc.)

Step 2: Win some offense (under the given framework)

Step 3: Outweigh OR win terminal defense against your opponent’s offense

How to Win Offense

Extend the link and impact of the argument you’re going for. You don't need to extend internal links unless they're heavily contested. To extend the link/internal link/impact, you need to briefly explain what the link/internal link/impact is and successfully respond to all terminal defense against it. This applies to turns as well!

If nobody wins ANY offense, I presume for the 1st speaking team. If your strategy involves winning off presumption, I will only evaluate presumption warrants introduced BEFORE final focus.

The default framework is util. If you want to introduce a different one, do so BEFORE summary. Frameworks should have warrants and, ideally, reasons why your opponents don't link in.

How to Outweigh

Tell me why your impact (or the link to the impact) is more important than your opponent’s via comparative analysis.

If there are multiple competing weighing mechanisms, you should metaweigh. Otherwise, I default prereq > mag > prob.

Probability weighing is NOT an excuse to read new defense. I evaluate probability in terms of strength of link (i.e. the less mitigated the link, the more probable it is).

If there are multiple pieces of offense but no weighing, I'll intervene for what I feel is the highest magnitude.

No new weighing in 2nd Final Focus.

How to Win Terminal Defense

Briefly explain the defense, explain why your opponents failed to respond, AND implicate why that defense is actually terminal.

Even if your defense isn't terminal, you should still extend it if you're going for probability weighing!

Progressive Debate

I will evaluate all forms of progressive debate unless it's something egregiously abusive and anti-educational (tricks). But, all things being equal, I still prefer evaluating traditional debates.

Theory MUST be in shell format and introduced immediately after the violation for me to evaluate it. Defaults are spirit > text, reasonability > CIs, DTA > DTD, education > fairness, and no RVIs.

Personally, I think everything besides disclosure and paraphrasing theory is frivolous, but I'll try my best to keep an open mind if you're running something different.

I have very elementary experience with kritiks. I will try my best, in good faith, to evaluate your arguments, but you are responsible for making them clear to me. Slow down and explain the literature using as little academic jargon as possible, and I will be receptive.

If you're looking for free, high-quality debate content, subscribe to Proteus Debate Academy

Name: Lalit Kumar

Email: lalit96@yahoo.com

I am a lay/parent judge. However, I do have knowledge of the LD and how it works. I have judged PF tournaments for over a year and got familiarity with LD debates. I have also researched the current topic in detail online.

I usually join a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.

Key notes:

1. Respect - First, and foremost, debate is about having fun and expressing your creativity! Please be respectful to your opponents and your judges.

2. Document sharing - please share your speech/response docs ahead of time so I can follow along. Include me in the email chain (lalit.kumar.debate@gmail.com) Please ensure the subject is not blank and populated with tournament name and round.

3. Clarity - Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Your arguments should be clear and well-substantiated with evidence

4. Jargon - Jargon and abbreviations should be avoided and will lead to deductions. They cause a lack of clarity and can lead to misinterpretations. Please explain any technical jargon that you use.

5. Time - Going overtime will lead to deductions. I would recommend timing yourself and your opponents. In case you notice your opponent is overtime, feel free to raise your zoom hand to highlight this.

6. Signposting - I strongly recommend signposting so your opponents understand what you are responding to.

7. Theories and Ks - I have limited understanding of Theories and Ks; but I am okay to proceed as long as you break it down in simple and clear terms. You need to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic.

8. I don't prefer extinction, but I don't mind as long as you have a clear link chain.

My email is brianylee2003@yahoo.com. I am a parent judge. I have no prior debate experience, but my child has competed in PF for the past year. You should assume that I am knowledgeable about the topic if it is PF.

Evidence: I am not tech > truth, so if you want to argue the sky is green, I won't buy it. But I am open to reasonable interpretations of evidence (e.g., sky is purple, pink, orange, blue, a mixture of hues, etc.), particularly if your opponent fails to contest your interpretation.

Please be honest about your evidence. Your credibility matters A LOT. If your opponent points out a weakness in your evidence, you can try to dodge it by diversion, etc., but don't outright lie about it. If you're caught in an outright lie, you WILL lose your round.

Moreover, I want to reward the team that has done its research and can back up their contentions with solid evidence. That's why it is not uncommon for me, especially during elimination rounds, to request to examine cards that I think are crucial to how I might decide the debate.

Spreading/Speaker Score: Don't speak at a supersonic speed. My upper limit for comprehension is about 200 words per minute. So if your speech exceeds 800 words in a 4-minute speech, consider shortening it. Competitive debate may be the only activity where confusing your opponent through mumbling is allowed. I accept it as the reality, but I don't want to reward it. Spread at your own risk.

Beyond your mastery of language and confident articulation, I'm also looking for the ability to explain complex ideas simply and logically. Clarity is crucial in getting a high speaker score from me. Be careful about tossing around jargons. While I may understand it, excessive use of jargons in lieu of plain speaking may lower your speaker score.

During cross, I want to see polite, but assertive examination. Being passive may lower your speaker score.

Constructive: During this phase, I'm looking for debaters to (a) describe a problem, (b) explain to me precisely how the resolution you're advocating for will help solve the problem, and (c) tell me the impacts.

Too often I see debaters unable (or perhaps unwilling) to describe the problem beyond vague, general terms. For example, if you want to argue Chinese hegemony, tell me what specific behavior of China you want to stop or counter. Simply throwing around fancy labels like "hegemony" or "multi-polarity" won't do it for me.

The same goes for (b). To convince why your proposal will work, you need to cite either a credible expert explaining how it will work, or a historical example showing how it has worked, or at least logical reasoning and common sense why it will help. If, after four minutes, I struggle to connect the dots, it would be challenging for me to lean in your favor.

When it comes to impacts, I don't always go with the biggest one. I measure magnitude of an impact along with likelihood as well as timeframe. More importantly, if you don't do (a) and (b) well, I can't give you (c). In other words, accessing (c) is a direct function of doing (a) and (b) well.

Cross-examination: I know some judges don't pay too much attention to this. I REALLY do. To me cross is the essence of debate . During cross, I am looking for you to probe the weaknesses of your opponent's contentions to set up your rebuttals and to defend your own positions. I expect lively exchanges involving vigorous attacks and robust defenses. I will also look to see which team can establish perceptual dominance. Your performance in cross is often a key factor in how I decide speaker scores and possibly the round.

Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus. Rebuttal is straightforward, so I won't elaborate. For summary and final focus, I'm looking for debaters who can bring CLARITY (yes, that word again). That often means collapsing if you have three or more contentions and telling me how the contentions interact with each other. Tell me what I need to focus on, why your contention wins, and why your impacts outweigh. Clarity is the key to earning my vote.

Good luck!

David Levin

he/him/his

Email chain: davidlevindebate[AT]gmail.com

Current Affiliations: Speyer School; Berkeley Carroll; Collegiate

Previous Affiliations: St. Luke's: 2022-24 [Conflict]; Success Academy Charter Schools: 2019-20; Bronx Science: 2018-19

----------

Top-Level Expectations:

-Be decent to one another

-Be ready to debate at the start time, including an email chain/speechdrop

-(Online) - sound check before round, and check to make sure we're all ready before you start your speech

----------

Lincoln Douglas/UH Cougar Classic:

Hi folks!

you can probably refer to my policy paradigm for answers to most of your questions, but here are some things to know if I'm judging your round.

-Sloooow down at the start of your speeches, tags, and signposting between arguments. Neither of us want me to miss what you're saying, so help me help you (especially online!).

-I'm happy to judge whatever you do best, but my favorite rounds tend to be K v. K and K v. FW/T debates.

-I've judged very few "phil" rounds - if this is your preferred style of debating, please go for it!, but know that this is relatively uncharted territory for me.

-Quality > Quantity for off-case! More than 4-off runs the risk of my flow becoming disorganized. While I am sympathetic to Condo Bad as an argument, I would strongly prefer not having to decide rounds on it.

-Please don't read frivolous theory arguments. Things like disclosure, paraphrasing, and counterplan/competition theory are fine, but don't subject me to a debate about paradoxes, please.

----------

Policy:

-I have a bit lower speed threshold than a lot of circuit policy judges. Start your speeches a bit slower to let me get acclimated to your voice/speed. Me "clearing" you wont affect your speaker points, but it could affect what i'm able to get on my flow.

-I have done very little research on the topic - keep this in mind for acronyms, terms of art, and normal means arguments.

-I'm happy to vote for procedural fairness.

-I'm equally happy to vote for an impact turn against procedural fairness.

-My favorite K affs have had some degree of relevance to the resolution, whether implicit or explicit. This fact is descriptive, not prescriptive.

-I thoroughly enjoy a good T debate. I especially enjoy competing interpretations on the substance of the resolution (words other than "Resolved:" and "USFG").

-Quality over quantity for off-case. 4-off is my general threshold for keeping a good flow these days - the cleaner I flow the more effectively i can adjudicate.

-If it happens, so be it, but I'd rather not decide debates on condo.

-Generally, no RVIs.

-Kritiks - I have at least a surface knowledge of most of the popular literature bases. If you're reading something more niche, give me some more explanatory depth. I love when debaters teach me something new!

-Process counterplans aren't cheating, but that doesn't mean they're good.

-Perms are tests of competition.

-I miss A-Spec. (That does not necessarily mean its always a good argument)

-I love judge instruction - write my ballot in the 2N/AR.

-Signpost, Signpost, Signpost!

----------

Public Forum:

-Speed is fine if you're clear and loud

-Collapse on the argument you want written on my ballot

-Kicking an argument is distinct from not addressing an argument

-Weigh links, especially with similar terminal impacts

-Presumption defaults to the side closest to the status quo

-I flow each contention separately - keep that in mind for road maps/signposting

-Kritik and FW/T debates are my favorites - if you want feedback on a critical argument, I'm a good judge for you

-This trend of having a sentence on the wiki serve as "terminal defense" against theory is silly. if you're thinking about theory enough to have a blurb about it on your wiki, I expect you've thought about it enough to have substantive responses

----------

I am a parent of a Myers Park High School speech and debate student and have three seasons of experience judging Public Forum. I have also judged Lincoln-Douglas a little. I am a retired accounting professional. I prefer for debaters to speak at a moderate pace rather than a very rapid one. I value argument over style. I will view overly aggressive debaters, and especially disrespectful ones, less favorably. I find weighing by debaters at the end to be helpful. I provide some feedback in person at the end of debates but do not typically indicate which side won the debate, and in some cases I may need to go through my notes and do more thinking to determine who won. I do not consider any information not mentioned by the debaters in reaching my decisions.

Updated for Fall 2019.- Yes, include me on any email chain. jessemeyer@gmail.com

I am currently an assistant PF debate coach at Iowa City West HS. I am also under contract by the NSDA to produce topic analysis packets and advanced briefs for LD, PF, and Biq Questions. I am also an instructor with Global Academy Commons, an organization that has partnered with NSDA China to bring speech and debate education, public speaking, and topic prep to students in East Asia. In my free time, I play Magic: The Gathering and tab debate tournaments freelance. I am the recipient of the Donald Crabtree Service Award, 2 diamond coach (pending April 2020), and was the state of Iowa's Coach of the Year in 2015.

I say all of this not to impress people. I'm way too old to care about that. I say this to point out one thing: I've dedicated my life to speech and debate. Since I was 14, this activity was a place where I could go to find people that cared about the same things as me and who were like me. No matter how bad of a day I was having, I could go to practice and everything would be ok. This is what debate is to me, and this is what I have worked towards since I became a coach. So it upsets and angers me when I see people that try to win debate rounds by making the world a worst place for others. There is a difference between being competitive and being a jerk. I've had to sit with students who were in tears because they were mistreated because they were women, I've had people quit the team because they were harassed because of their religion, and I've had to ask competitors to not use racial slurs in round. And to be honest, I am tired of it. So if your All Star Tournament Champion strategy revolves around how unconformable you can make your opponent, strike me.

With that being stated, here is how I view arguments.

In LD, I prefer a value and criterion, even if you are going non traditional in your case structure. I don't care if you are traditional, progressive, critical, or performative. I've judges and coached all types and I've voted for all types too. What I care about more is the topic hook you use to get your arguments to the relationship of the topic. If I can't find a clear link, if one isn't established, or if you can't articulate one, I'm going to have a really hard time voting for you.

I weight impacts. This is a holdover from my old college policy days. Clearly extend impacts and weight them. I view the value and criterion as lens for which I prioritize types of impacts. Just winning a value isn't enough to wind the round if you don't have anything that impacts back to it.

If you run a CP, the aff should perm. Perms are tests of competition. Most will still link to the DA so the neg should make that arg. The more unique the CP, the better. CP's should solve at least some impacts of the aff.

If you run a K, throwing around buzz words like "discourse, praxis, holistic, traversing X, or anything specific to the K" without explaining what those mean in the round will lower your speaker points. To me, you are just reading what the cards you found in the policy backfile said. Also, finding unique links to more generic K's, like cap or biopower, will be beneficial in how I view the round. But also note that on some topics, the K you love just might not work. Don't try to force it. A good aff needs to perm. Perm's on K debates tend to solve their offense. I do not like links of omission.

Case debate- Love it.

Theory- Do not love it. When I was in my 20's, I didn't mind theory, but now, the thought of people speed reading or even normal reading theory shells at each other makes me fear for my 50 minutes in round. If theory is justified, I will vote on it but there is a big barrier to what I count as justified. I need to see clear in round abuse. In lue of that, the potential abuse story needs to be absolutely 100% on point. This means that a theory shell that is zipped through in 10 seconds will not be getting my vote. No questions asked. Do the work because I don't do the work for you. Oh, I will not vote on disclosure theory. Disclosing probably is good but I do not require it and unless the tournament does, I don't see a reason to punish the debaters for not doing this.

Reformative arguments- I coached kids on these arguments and I've voted for them too. The thing is that because I don't see them often I have the reputation of not liking them. This creates a negative feedback loop so I never see them and so on... I'll vote for them but you need to have a topic hook and some justification or solvency mech for your performance. I will also be 100% honest because I owe it to the debaters who do this style of debate and who have put in so much time to get it right, I'm probably a midrange judge on this. At large bid tournaments there are probably judges that are better versed in the lit base who can give you more beneficial pointers.

PF Debate

Unless told otherwise, I use the pilot rules as established by the NSDA.

I hold evidence to a high standard. I love paraphrasing but if called out, you better be able to justify what you said.

If I call for a card, don't hand me a pdf that is 40 pages long. I will not look for it. I want it found for me. If you expect me to find it, I will drop the card.

I am still getting on board with pf disclosure. I am not the biggest fan as of now. I can see the educational arguments for it but it also runs counter to the basis for the event. I do not require teams to share cases before round and arguments in round as to why not sharing put you at a disadvantage won't get you ground.

I appreciate unique frameworks.

This event is not policy. I don't drop teams for speed or reading card after card after card but I will dock speaker points.

I weight impacts. But with this stipulation; I am not a fan of extinction impacts in pf. I think it goes a bit too far to the policy side of things. Use your framework to tell me how to prioritize the impacts.

Treat others with respect. I will drop people for being intentionally horrible to your opponents in round. Remember, there is a way to be competitive without being a jerk.

Should also go without saying but be nice to your partner too. Treat them as an equal. They get the W the same as you.

Policy- Honestly, I kind of used the majority of what I wanted to say in the LD section since they are so similar nowadays.

T- Love it. Won most of my college neg rounds on it. Be very clear on the interp and standards. If you go for it, only go for it. Should be the only argument in the 2NR.

Judge Paradigm:

Background:
As a judge, I believe in fairness and objectivity. My role is to evaluate the debate based on the arguments presented, not my personal beliefs or knowledge. I appreciate clear, logical argumentation and effective communication.

Flow/Structure:
I will flow the round carefully, so I appreciate clear signposting and roadmap speeches. A well-structured case that’s easy to follow will always benefit you. If you want me to weigh a specific argument, make it clear in your summary and final speeches.

Evidence vs. Analysis:
I believe both evidence and analysis are important. Strong evidence should support well-thought-out analysis, but a debate that is too evidence-heavy without explanation or context may lose persuasive power. I value quality of evidence over quantity—just throwing a lot of facts at me without tying them to your argument won’t win you the round.

Speaks (Speaker Points):
I evaluate speaker points based on clarity, delivery, and engagement. Confidence and professionalism in presentation matter, but you don’t need to be flashy. Effective use of rhetoric, persuasive tone, and strategic word choices can enhance your delivery.

Cross-Examination (CX):
Cross-examination is key to identifying weaknesses in your opponent’s case. I appreciate debaters who use CX to ask meaningful questions and clarify points rather than trying to score cheap wins. It’s also a good opportunity to control the narrative.

Theory/Framework:
If you run theory, make sure it's warranted and not frivolous. I am open to hearing theory and framework debates, but it must be well-justified and impact the round significantly. I am more inclined to vote on these if the abuse is clear and affects the debate directly.

Speed (Spreading):
I’m comfortable with speed, but clarity is a must. If I can’t understand what you’re saying because of speed, it won’t make it on the flow. I’ll call for "clear" if needed, but keep in mind that over-spreading can hurt you more than help.

Weighing:
I highly value good weighing mechanisms. Make sure to tell me why your impacts matter more and how they compare to your opponent’s arguments. Impact calculus is crucial in close rounds, and I prefer to hear clear explanations of magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

Voter Issues:
In the final speeches, please be clear on your voting issues. Summarizing key arguments and telling me why you should win will help me when making a decision. I prefer to see debaters focus on crystallizing the debate rather than introducing new arguments in the last speeches.

Conclusion:
In summary, I look for clear, structured, and logical arguments. I’m open to all kinds of debate styles, but clarity and strategic choices are key. Make sure to tell me why you win, and I’ll base my decision on what’s presented in the round.

There are six things I feel strongly about.

1. Evidence matters.

2. The aff should be topical.

3. Conditionality works.

4. Clarity is key.

5. CX is important.

6. Stock issues.

I read a lot of evidence and it is a main factor into my decisions in rounds. If you do not have quality evidence and you do not unpack and link it well that will not serve you well in my rounds.

Truth = evidence quality + technical proficiency. This means you need to not only ensure that your evidence is of high quality but the manner in which you present your evidence in the technical ways in which you go about conducting yourself in the round are both key to ensuring your success debating.

I seem to care more about the link than just about any other part of an argument and more than many other judges. I am a stickler for details. I need to see you clearly unpack the information you're using and showing me that you have a clear train of thought, a clear argument chain, and you actually understand what you are talking about and not just reading a card.

Stock issues matter. I should not have to explain this further for folks. People talk all the time about the role of the ballot. That role for me starts with stock issues.

Debaters who get high points from me are clear, concise, deeply knowledgeable about the topic, able to anticipate their opponent's arguments, good in CX, and clearly demonstrate meaningful preparation by developing new arguments or thoughtfully applying old ones to opposing strategies.

It should be noted for all who get me as a judge, explicit statements that are sexist, racist, etc. arguments will NEVER win my ballot. Also, students who are openly rude or exclude individuals in the round will NEVER win my ballot.

Updating in progress November 2024.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put all 3 emails on the chain.

codydb8@gmail.com (different email than years past)

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

colleyvilledebatedocs@gmail.com

I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourselves. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Ending cx early and turning that time into prep time is not a thing in front of me. You have either 8 or 10 minutes of prep time, use it judiciously. Please, do not prep when time is not running. I do not consider e-mailing documents/chains as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.

I enjoy all kinds of debates. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.

Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.

If the first thing you do on counterplans is read 3 or 4 permutations and a theory argument at top speed then you know I won't be able to flow all of the distinctions. Why not separate every other analytical argument with an evidenced argument or what if you slowed down just a tad.... I am a great flow, it is just analytical arguments aren't supposed to be read at top speed stacked next to each other. Same on K's F/w then numerous Perm's all at top speed stacked on top of each other is silly and not realistic for judges to get all of the distinctions/standards.

GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!

LD June 13, 2022

A few clarifications... As long as you are clear you can debate at any pace you choose. Any style is fine, although if you are both advancing different approaches then it is incumbent upon each of you to compare and contrast the two approaches and demonstrate why I should prioritize/default to your approach. If you only read cards without some explanation and application, do not expect me to read your evidence and apply the arguments in the evidence for you. Be nice to each other. I pay attention during cx. I will not say clearer so that I don't influence or bother the other judge. If you are unclear, you can look at me and you will be able to see that there is an issue. I might not have my pen in my hand or look annoyed. I keep a comprehensive flow and my flow will play a key role in my decision. With that being said, being the fastest in the round in no way means that you will win my ballot. Concise well explained arguments will surely impact the way I resolve who wins, an argument advanced in one place on the flow can surely apply to other arguments, however the debater should at least reference where those arguments are relevant. CONGRATULATIONS & GOOD LUCK!!!

LD Paradigm from May 1, 2022
I will update this more by May 22, 2022

I am not going to dictate the way in which you debate. I hope this will serve as a guide for the type of arguments and presentation related issues that I tend to hear and vote on. I competed in LD in the early 1990's and was somewhat successful. From 1995 until present I have primarily coached policy debate and judged CX rounds, but please don't assume that I prefer policy based arguments or prefer/accept CX presentation styles. I expect to hear clearly every single word you say during speeches. This does not mean that you have to go slow but it does mean incomprehensibility is unacceptable. If you are unclear I will reduce your speaker points accordingly. Going faster is fine, but remember this is LD Debate.

Despite coaching and judging policy debate the majority of time every year I still judge 50+ LD rounds and 30+ extemp. rounds. I have judged 35+ LD rounds on the 2022 spring UIL LD Topic so I am very familiar with the arguments and positions related to the topic.

I am very comfortable judging and evaluating value/criteria focused debates. I have also judged many LD rounds that are more focused on evidence and impacts in the round including arguments such as DA's/CP's/K's. I am not here to dictate how you choose to debate, but it is very important that each of you compare and contrast the arguments you are advancing and the related arguments that your opponent is advancing. It is important that each of you respond to your opponents arguments as well as extend your own positions. If someone drops an argument it does not mean you have won debate. If an argument is dropped then you still need to extend the conceded argument and elucidate why that argument/position means you should win the round. In most debates both sides will be ahead on different arguments and it is your responsibility to explain why the arguments you are ahead on come first/turns/disproves/outweighs the argument(s) your opponent is ahead on or extending. Please be nice to each other. Flowing is very important so that you ensure you understand your opponents arguments and organizationally see where and in what order arguments occur or are presented. Flowing will ensure that you don't drop arguments or forget where you have made your own arguments. I do for the most part evaluate arguments from the perspective that tech comes before truth (dropped arguments are true arguments), however in LD that is not always true. It is possible that your arguments might outweigh or come before the dropped argument or that you can articulate why arguments on other parts of the flow answer the conceded argument. I pay attention to cross-examinations so please take them seriously. CONGRATULATIONS for making it to state!!! Each of you should be proud of yourselves! Please, be nice in debates and treat everyone with respect just as I promise to be nice to each of you and do my absolute best to be predictable and fair in my decision making. GOOD LUCK!

PF coach for like 5 years. Dabbled in Policy. Smidgen of LD. Heard of Congress.

I prefer clear logical explanations above anything else, demonstrating a mastery of the topic. Solid evidence as well. And squirrelly technicalities, not at all.

I'm too much of a boomer for some theory/kritiks but always try to entertain a good argument.

Please don't spread, at risk of losing your arguments on my flow. If you must, give me a speech doc.

Please signpost.

Be kind, have fun and good luck :)

Hello,

Affiliations: I am affiliated with Livingston High School as a parent of a student there.

Judging: This is my 3rd year of judging PF tournaments.

Speaking speed: Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, I shall give visual cue to suggest them to slow down.

Weighting: Both arguments and style are important. I weight arguments a bit more than style. I weigh evidence and analytics equally.

Time: Students should keep their own time well. While, I generally don't mind if a speaker is a few seconds over the time limit, going quite a bit over (like 15-20 seconds or more) might weigh negatively.

I encourage (but not require) signposting.

Please treat your teammates and opponents with respect and dignity.

First time parent judge. Please time your speeches and speak at an understandable pace.

Hey all! I am a parent judge, and this is my first time judging. Here's what I'm looking for in a PF round:

• In terms of speed, completely refrain from spreading or speaking fast, as that'll result in my frayed comprehension.
• In terms of speech structure, I expect a fleshed-out explanation in your arguments, whether that is in Constructive or Rebuttal. Don't say something along the lines of "climate change --> nuke war" without thoroughly explaining why this happens, and don't make up arguments against your opponents that lack logical reasoning (if not supported by carded evidence).
• I'll listen to crossfire, but anything that is brought up in cross must be brought up in speeches afterward, or it won't factor into my decision.
• Remember that this is PF and not a battleground; refrain from aggression in the crossfire.
• Signposting is greatly appreciated so I can clearly understand where you are in your speech.
• Refrain from using debate jargon, that includes, but is not limited to, "collapse, turn, outweigh, de-link, non-unique, mitigation, terminalize, cross-apply, link-in, short-circuit, pre-req, etc."
• If you want to convince me why your arguments are more important thans your opponents, you have to compare yourself to your opponents. Comparative debate is a must.
• NO THEORY.
• Be confident, and have a fun time! Good luck to you all!

I've been a lay judge for a couple years now and enjoy it but still consider myself new-ish to judging. I've learned a lot from you all!

Consider sharing evidence directly on your device- it's the fastest. If you prefer emailing please include me-- raruna@yahoo.com

Please title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order.

Judging philosophy

1. I am a scientist by training (PhD) and value logic, cogent arguments, supporting evidence, weighing, warrants and impact, combined with clear delivery and thoughtful presentation of ideas. You can collapse or not, I don't have a preference, as long as it makes sense. If you're collapsing, please weigh so I can understand why your impact is more valid than the other team's.

2. Clash is awesome but be respectful. You can be classy, even when you are passionately defending your perspective. It's a great life skill.

3. Try not to speak too fast. Medium-fast is ok but if you spread I may (will) not follow. If I miss your point I can't evaluate it. Please signpost- that would be appreciated.

4. Again, I value impacts (meaningful impacts, not far-fetched ones) and warrants and especially appreciate weighing.

5. Avoid jargon. It might mystify me.

6. NO theory, K's, etc! I DO NOT understand the highly technical aspects of debate and would not be able to judge those.

General

7. Rules. Just follow the ground rules, please (time, prep, collegiality, no new arguments later in the round, etc etc). It makes for a fun and fair debate. You can (and should be) be strong and passionate speakers but you don't want to be that team that won the round but made it a miserable experience for everyone else in the room (including the judge).

6. TIME. Part of Rules (#7) but important enough to warrant its own section. Stick to time. Please. We both have rounds to go on to so keep each other and yourself honest. Be ready with and quick to share evidence and cards (I'm flexible within reason). I keep time but occasionally forget to, so don't depend on me. I will stop flowing a few (5-10) seconds after your time ends. Be professional and don't try to game the system (draining opponents' time by asking for a dozen pieces of evidence/squeezing in prep time, etc). It's annoying and I'll see through it.

7. I'm judging you but I am also supporting you. I recognize the hard work this sport takes, to think on your feet and construct and deliver persuasive arguments under time pressure and to be judged critically. I'll do my best to provide thoughtful feedback.

Good luck!!

howdy,

former HS and college competitor

I judge quite a bit

• treat others the way you want to be treated
• I don't do email chains, NSDA docs, speech drop or google docs are the way to go
• if using historical evidence you must address the 5 C's of historical analysis if not theres an L waiting for you

IE's -

MS/HS - you do youu!!

Collegiate - you know what to do

Congress -

no rehash

its ok to agree but have your own contentions/speech

stay active thru round

PO - if you don't state your gaveling procedures almost immediately I'm gonna rank you last

don't lie about evidence

PF - will auto down if you say exclusionary things and or things def not true (holocaust never happened)

can be tech or truth... all depends on what you run

Don't waste my time, flips and pre flows better be done before start caz if not imma start tanking speaks, try me I dare you

Condo/Fiat - IMO should be left to LD/CX but if you bring it up I'll evaluate it

resolutions/topics sometimes have loose wording... take advantage of that

impact cal is pretty neato, I love it and it be a game changer

best of luck going for a technical knock out

I like Disclosure Theory.... but if your wiki is BS and or not fully filled I will tear you apart

^

As a judge I know the rules better than you , don't preach them to me for this T

when citing evidence , be sure to say title , publisher , date

MY GO TO RULE FOR PF.... the Michael Scott rule - K.I.S - "Keep It Simple'

LD - if its a state or bid tournament send a doc , if not then don't bother

if spreading you better be clear or imma down, too bad

^ not gonna say clear

tech or truth?? all depends on what you run

P/CP - better be specific , if so I am the judge for you

Trad - I'm an ok judge

K - HECK YEA!!!!!

LARP - I like it... but can go either way

Tricks/Friv T/Performance/Phil/other T

^ unless you're running nihilism Phil I will get it... if not then don't

^^ auto strike

CX - LOL

NOPE, Will not judge

Worlds - I expect to see clash

don't paraphrase evidence

no speed, this needs to be conversational

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them

not taking any POI's makes you look silly, at least take 1 , but not too many

I really value creative, introspective and real rhetoric - trust me this is how you win me

style - a simple claim, warrant and impact will do just fine

don't try a PF take on this event

Should any questions need to be asked ... ask before round!

Best of LUCK 2024-2025 competitors !

I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 5 years.

I will be flowing.

Good luck !

Jai Sehgal

Updated for 2024-25 Szn

*Online Rounds*

Please go at ~60% of what your normal speed would be. I am not going to flow off of the doc, so if what you are saying is not coherent, I will not flow it.I have seen far too often debaters compromise articulation in their speech because they assume judges will just blindly flow from the doc. I understand that virtual rounds are a greater hassle due to the sudden drops in audio quality, connection and sound, so err on the side of slower speed to make sure all your arguments are heard.

Be sure to record your speeches locally some way (phone, tablet, etc.) so that if you cut out, you can still send them.

LD

Prefs Shortcut

LARP/Generic Circuit - 1

Theory - 2

Phil/High Theory Ks - 3/4

Tricks - Strike

General:

I default to evaluating the round through a competing worlds paradigm.

Impact calculus is the easiest way to clarify my ballot, so please do this to make things easier for you and I both.

Assume I don't know much about the topic, so please explain stuff before throwing around jargon.

Give me a sufficient explanation of dropped arguments; simply claims are not enough. I will still gut check arguments, because if something blatantly false is conceded, I will still not consider it true.

I love good analytic arguments. Of course evidence is cool, but I love it when smart arguments are made.

I like it when a side can collapse effectively, read overviews, and weigh copiously.

There's no yes/no to an argument - there's always a risk of it, ex. risk of a theory violation, or a DA.

Evidence ethics are a serious issue, and should only be brought up if you are sure there is a violation. This stops the round, and whoever's wrong loses the round with the lowest speaks possible.

Disclosure is a good thing. I like first 3 last 3, contact info, and a summary of analytics the best. I think that as long as you can provide whatever is needed, you're good. Regardless, I'll still listen to any variation of disclosure shells.

Please write your ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. Crystallization wins debates!

I debated mostly policy style, so I'm most comfortable judging those debates. I dabbled into philosophy and high theory as well, but have only a basic understanding of most common frameworks.

LARP:

My favorite kind of round to judge is a util debate. Unique scenarios/advantages are great.

I love impact calculus. The more specific your scenario is, the more likely I am to be persuaded by it, and a solid analysis of the impact debate will do good things for you.

A lack of offense means that there's always a moderate risk of the DA or the advantage. Winning zero risk is probably a tougher argument to win - that being said, if there's a colossal amount of defense on the flow, I'm willing to grant zero risk. However, simply relying on the risk of the DA will not be too compelling for me, and I'll have a lower threshold for arguments against it.

Theory:

If you're going to read theory, prove some actual abuse. My threshold for responses to frivolous theory has certainly gone down as I've judged more debates, so be wary before reading something like "cannot read extinction first."

I default competing interps, DTD, and no RVI's, but have realized there is some degree of judge intervention in every theory debate. Therefore, the onus is on you to win your standards clearly and do weighing between different standards.

Please go at like 50% speed or flash me analytics when you go for this because I’ve realized theory debates are sometimes hard to flow.

Kritiks:

I'm fine with generic K debates, but I'm probably not the best judge for high theory pomo debates.

The K must interact specifically with the aff because generic links a) make the debate boring, and b) are easy to beat. The more specific your link is to the aff, the more likely I will like listening to it.

I'd rather see a detailed analysis on the line-by-line debate rather than a super long overview. In the instance where you read an egregiously long overview and make 3 blippy arguments on the line-by-line, I'll have a very low threshold for 1AR extensions for the concessions.

I'll vote on K tricks and dropped framing arguments, but only if these are sufficiently explained. An alt solves the aff, floating PIK, conceded root cause, etc. are all much more persuasive if there's a clear explanation.

PF

I don't have many reservations in terms of what I want/don't want to see while judging PF, but here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. If it's not in FF, I will not vote on it.
2. Weighing should ideally begin as early as possible, and it will only help you if you do so.
3. If you would like to read theory, go ahead.
4. Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything + frontline.
5. Sending case docs is a good practice.

Hi all, my name is Ritu Sharma. This is my first time judging public forum! I am a lay judge, so please do not speak too fast. Extra guidelines:

1) Please be respectful towards your peers. Any foul language or hate speech will result in points deducted from your speaker points

2) Have fun!

I am a parent judge with some experience. With this in mind, let me share a few things:

• I have very low tolerance for speed; please do not read cases or rebuttal evidence at a pace that I may not understand. I don’t want to be added to an email chain or sent a speech doc - if that’s necessary, you’re reading too fast.
• I have no experience with theory, Ks, tricks, and the like; please do not attempt these in rounds with me. I will not be able to evaluate the round. If your opponent has a serious violation that you must bring my attention to, say it outright. Again, this should be only something blatantly harmful/round-altering.
• I will not vote for any argument that’s blatantly discriminatory.
• Do your best to extend your arguments throughout the round; the more clear your reasoning is the easier it will be to vote for you.
• I definitely pay attention to cross and it will impact your speaker points. I do not, however, flow arguments made during it. Mention anything you want me to flow from cross in the next speech.
• Weighing makes a round 100x easier to evaluate. That said, just saying “we outweigh on probability and magnitude” (for example) is not enough to convince me. Explain your justification, and you will be significantly more convincing.

Finally, have fun and think on your feet! Reading evidence will only take you so far; I am most impressed when you can logically and concisely explain your position. Good luck!

I have been coaching at Sprinboro HS for 3 years.

We have participated mainly in Public Forum but I have had students in Congress and a few speech events.

I consider myself a ‘flay’ judge and will end up somewhere towards a story that is more fact based or realistic rather than flow based.

Please don’t argue over evidence, be kind. This is civil debate.

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a fourth year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD, as long as your clear. I prefer traditional slow PF, Parli, local circuit LD, but both people want to spread and be technical, I guess it’s fine.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks, but I think I'm less inclined to than most, especially in PF. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap and neolib; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I think I’m more likely open to anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to competing interps, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse or reasonability convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason).

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and like it when your contentions clearly link to the topic (eg I’m not a fan of a 50 States CP paired with a DA without a topic specific link). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

Email chain: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

TL;DR: Be kind to each other.

If I am your parliamentarian: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore those things at your peril.

Presiding officers: I expect you to use preset recency. If the tournament does not have preset recency, I expect you to create your own with a randomizer. This is an equity issue and has the potential to impact your ranks. I pay attention to pre-session, in-session, and post-session politics and expect to see the presiding officer as a leader in those discussions. Remember that your job is to run things quickly while adhering to parliamentary procedure - Exercise your power if necessary but don't skip necessary processes. An easy example of this is calling for motions - 90% of the time instead of calling for motions you can just do

Congress competitors: I will not shake your hand. There is nothing I hate more than inauthentic "thank yous," especially when they're made loud enough for everyone to hear. The narrative arc of the round is extremely important - The first few speeches should be constructive, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate. Keep in mind that Congress is a debate event, so every speech past the author/sponsor needs engagement. That also means I expect people to flip - Past two bills on the same side of debate I will start penalizing speakers for not flipping.I have a laundry list of pet peeves that, while they won't impact your rank, will irritate me. Those include unnecessary and unfunny preamble before you speak, a refusal to flip for speeches, making motions that aren't real, and using the phrase "first affirmative."

Public Forum: I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln Douglas: I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

World Schools: The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Evidence ethics:

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Theory: I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Death Good/Oppression Good: "Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering."Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

Please. Please. Please. Just go slow. I am convinced that the definition of slow has changed. Whatever you think is slow, go slower. Run whatever you want but just go slow.

Kempner '20 | UT '24

Email: rajsolanki@utexas.edu

its probably easier to message me on facebook though

30 speaks if i get a good speech without a laptopI will give you 30 or the next highest speaker points literally possible if you go slow and clear

Round Robin Update - please send cases and speeches in the email chain - no google docs

Round Robin Update 2 - I judged my first round and I genuinely could not understand an argument that was made... and I am certain that was not because of any hearing issues or inability to process a competitive debate round. If you want me to flow your speech, go slower and actually explain your arguments.

Warning: Proceed with caution when choosing the arguments you run against clearly inexperienced teams. Idk if I reserve the right but just cause it sounds cool Imma go ahead and reserve the right to drop you if I think that you are making the event inaccessible for anyone.

everytime i come back and judge debate i feel like people's standard for the term fast is changing. I am a technical judge, but honestly, please go slow(er) its way more fun for my experience and your ballot.

Clear link-warrant-impact extensions is fundamental to getting my ballot

The Jist

• Debate is a Game, you play it how you want to. But I also have my own bias as to how the game is won. This means that doing what you do best along with adapting to my paradigm is the way to go.

• My role as a judge is not as a norm setter. It is as a policy maker and voting on the implications of a policy action. This means that I will not evaluate any theory shells, tricks, or any other super progressive stuff. I want you to debate PUBLIC FORUM. However, I still want to see a good tech>truth debate. So imagine that you're in an out round and like 30 people are watching. Debate the way where every single person can understand those arguments and form a decision on their own. The only exceptions to this preference are Ks and paragraph theory. With Ks, i think they are technically answering the resolution, but I don't prefer them because i'm not that well versed nor do i particularly enjoy judging them.The other exception is paragraph theory. By this, if you see clear abuse and think they should actually be dropped mid round, then just explain why. I don't want a shell, just explain the abuse story as if it were a traditional argument

• dont run disclosure theory or paraphrase theory
• love a good framing debate hate a bad framing debate xD

• "I'm going to vote for the least mitigated link into the best weighed impact" - Andy Stubbs.

• My favorite American Asher Moll puts this quite exquisitely, "weighing is important but is not necessary to win my ballot, provided i think your defense on the offense that they go for is terminal. that said, you should still weigh in case i grant your opponents some offense. if i think both sides are winning offense, i resolve the weighing debate first when making my decision. i will only evaluate new 2ff weighing if there was no other weighing in the round"

• Speed is a really subjective thing here. I honestly think it depends. When I debated, I was always relatively faster because I'm used to speaking in a faster pace in all my conversations. So when I debated, I would say I debated at a normal speed, but it was still relatively fast and understandable because that's just how I talk. So to be as objective as possible, speed should be like my Thai Food spice level: Medium! This means a little kick in the pace can be advantageous, but too much is going to make my brain explode and I might just give up on flowing. If you're going too fast, my mind is just going to lag and my flow across the rest of the speech is going to drop like dominos. That might frustrate you when it comes to my RFD. But if you do want to go super fast, send a speech doc to me and your opponents. dont go fast but maybe read the strikethrough

• I'm tech over truth, read any substance you want

• Crossfire is 100% binding. Im going to pay attention. The speech exists for a reason and im being paid to pay attention. It's also a skill that you need to learn and it promotes not being bailed out by a partner if a mistake is made.

• If you believe your opponent has no path to the ballot, you can call TKO. The round is then officially over. If your opponent has no path to the ballot at that point, you get a W30. If you are incorrect, you get an L 25.

• The summary and final focus speeches of the round MUST have a link, warrant, AND impact extended. I have a mid-tier threshold for impacts but an extremely high threshold for the link and the warrant. You must explain the entire link story or else none of y'all will be encouraged to collapse.
  
  
• i feel like a lot of debaters had trouble distinguishing in round humor with being a dick so you can mess around but it better be good.

• There has to be some basic response to the first rebuttal if you want to wash away their defense/turn/DA in the second half of the round. For instance, if a response is made in 1st rebuttal, a basic response to it in the second rebuttal would suffice, but a more well-explained response in second summary would be required. This means that I think it is strategic to frontline in the second rebuttal. It's your loss (not the actual L but probably the actual L) if you don't. Personally, I spent 2-2.5 minutes in second rebuttals front-lining and then the rest on their case, simply because i already had more time to create a more efficient and selective rebuttal by going second. NOTE: if you frontline their entire rebuttal and you put solid coverage on their case, i am going to give you a 30 regardless of how good/bad the final focus is. I think those types of speeches are the most impressive.

• I don't think that defense is sticky anymore with the 3 minute summary, but I don't think this should be a problem and it's probably to your advantage that you extend defense regardless. If you make one or two solid defense extensions that are poorly or not responded to, then that's really hard to come back from, so just do it.

• Obviously the rule of thumb is that you should not bring up new stuff in summary and final focus, unless first summary is making frontlines.

• DO NOT and i mean DO NOT try reading offensive overviews or new contentions, what you all like to call "advantages or disadvantages" in second rebuttal. I am straight up not going to evaluate it especially if you just kick your entire case and collapse on it. FREE ELKINS AP

• If there is no offense left in the round, I presume NEG. Remember, I said I was a policy maker so in super basic terms if I don't see any comparative change as a result of affirming the resolution, then I negate. if its a benefits versus harms resolution then I presume to the side (usually aff) that is also the squo

• take flex prep if needed

• Signposting is crucial or else my flow is going to drop like dominos part 2

• When you make extensions don't just say the author name make sure that you're giving a clear explanation of what the author is saying. Not only is this better practice but I don't get every single author name down so make sure you are clear.

I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge.

I have judged ~10s of LD, PF debates and few speech formats.

I do take detailed notes and I am able to follow fast pace of delivery but not sure if that is enough to qualify me as a "flow judge". I will request debates to slow down if I am not able to follow along.

I need some time after the debate to cross check my notes tabulate results and come up with a decision, so I would not be able to provide any comments at the end of the debate. I will make all efforts to provide detailed written feedback when I turn in my ballots.

I make a good fait assumption that debaters have made all efforts to verify the reliability/credibility/validity of the sources they are citing. If a debater feels otherwise about their opponents sources, I would like to hear evidence.

I appreciate civic, respectful discourse.

Do not use a lot of debate jargon, the lay judge that I am would not probably not understand most of it.

Add me to the email chain: joestanburyjones@gmail.com

Background-

I am the two-year incumbent president of the University Essex Debating Society. I have coached BP for over two years at university level and I regularly judge in PF debates.

Public Forum

Tech vs Truth:

Truth vs Tech is not a static either/or but rather an expanding and contracting cleavage given the unique context of each round.

For example, the greater the imbalance between either technique or truth, will subsequently result in a larger weight on the specific area of imbalance. Any great imbalance will take a president in the judging.

When differences in rounds are marginal, I initially do a technical overview where I determine where each team sits on the technical threshold below. I will then compare this to the threshold of truth.

I judge one over the other based when technique and combined who. For example, if one side has produced untrue arguments but shows great technique, and the other shows poor technique but has truthful arguments, victory will be decided upon a combination of, the quality of technique + quality of the truth claim.

Technical Threshold:

Flow

Structure

Rebuttals

Depth of analysis

Link

Demonstration of Warrant

Impact

Weighing

Solvency

Truth Threshold:

Who has provided a better warrant to what 'should' happen? I evaluate 'should' over 'likely' as most questions are not asking a debater what the probable outcome is but what their solution is. However, this does not discount the need for a warrant to include feasibility, therefore all claims need to be reasonably mechanised in the round, as I cannot fill in the gaps. I highly weigh the solvency of all arguments in relation to their 'truth'.

Kritique:

I like K, I think it's very valid, but note K cannot stand alone and the team must provide a reconstruction considering their kritique. I do not evaluate K as being inherently more abstract than a practical mechanical rebuttal would be. The theoretical nature of the rebuttal does not decrease warrant however like a traditional mechanism K must be fully analysed and linked directly to the question in order to be merited. Simple asserting, for example, that capitalism is a harmful and destructive system bears no weight if it is not linked to your evidence and answering the question.

Theory

Interests me very little.

Evidence Ethics:

Calling into question evidence legitimacy. Questions to bring up; Why is their evidence disreputable? How does this affect the warrant of their argument? Why is your evidence more trustworthy? After these questions are answered I will consider the impacts evidence quality brings to bear.

I prefer resources from academic resources over journalism articles if the article cites a YouGov poll find the link to the original YouGov poll and do not assume newspapers are doing their due diligence.

I am not massively concerned about evidence being biased unless a debater makes a specific mention of how it is. However, if a team is depending on evidence pieces to justify a claim with limited analysis, I am going to be more critical than if they provided analysis supported by evidence in the debate,

Speech:

My speech preferences are pretty lax, spreading I never encounter much in PF but I prefer people not to.

Misc:

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Politics DA is a thing----------X-----------------Politics DA is not a thing

Give me solvency or give me death !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

Hello debaters!

I'm a parent / lay judge, so please talk relatively slowly and articulately. If you have a speech doc, I would prefer for you to send it to my email address (included at the bottom of my paradigm) so I can follow along more easily.

I will flow during speeches, but not during cross. I also do not keep track of time, so make sure to time yourselves for both speeches and prep. Refrain from using complex, debate-specific terminology or theory as much as possible. I will not be disclosing in call.

In regards to the round content, make sure to explain exactly why I should vote for you. If you do not explain why your case outweighs the opposition's, then it will be significantly harder for me to make a decision. To this point, this will be especially important in summary and FF. Make sure to extend throughout your speeches all the way to FF if you want me to consider that contention, turn, or rebuttal.

Final note, I want to hear civil discourse throughout the round – don't be rude to your opponents or I will take significant marks off your speaks.

Adele Tan (adele_tan@outlook.com)

I am a parent judge. This is my first tournament and I would not like the use of debate jargon in rounds. Please be simple and respectful- I will not tolerate mean debaters. I need you to speak coherently. A public forum is about debate with the public and argumentation for the sake of argumentation means nothing, in other words, I need speeches, not words. Solid (read: good) logical points are the only thing I can listen to, not words being said at me.

Also, add me to email chains with my email: dhirajtiwari@yahoo.com

As for speaker scores, I start out with a 28 and will award points for impactful and logical speaking, and deduct points for being an unethical or negative debater, or simply a rough speaking path. Please don't go over time, and I will give about 15 seconds of overtime for the purpose of a new debate environment and tech issues.

Finally,NO THEORY. Progressive argumentation beware!

A typical lay judge with a need for slower speech. Let's have some good rounds together!

Please speak clearly and make sure Summary and final focus are consistent.

toby.whiz@gmail.com

Fundamentally I see debate as a game. I think it is a valuable and potentially transformative game that can have real world implications, but a game none the less that requires me to choose a winner. Under that umbrella here are some specifics.

1. Comparative analysis is critical for me. You are responsible for it. I will refrain from reading every piece of evidence and reconstructing the round, but I will read relevant cards and expect the highlighting to construct actual sentences. Your words and spin matters, but this does not make your evidence immune to criticism.

2. The affirmative needs to engage the resolution.

3. Theory debates need to be clear. Might require you to down shift some on those flows. Any new, exciting theory args might need to be explained a bit for me. Impact your theory args.

4. I am not well versed in your lit. Just assume I am not a "____________" scholar. You don't need to treat me like a dullard, but you need to be prepared to explain your arg minus jargon. See comparative analysis requirement above.

Side notes:

Not answering questions in CX is not a sound strategy. I will give leeway to teams facing non responsive debaters.

Debaters should mention their opponents arguments in their speeches. Contextualize your arguments to your opponent. I am not persuaded by those reading a final rebuttal document that "answers everything" while not mentioning the aff / neg.

Civility and professionalism are expected and will be reciprocated.

Speech events. I am looking for quality sources and logic in OO and Inf. I have been teaching speech for 18 years and will evaluate fundamentals as well.

I am not comfortable with spreading, so please speak at a moderate pace and be clear. I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Demonstrate your knowledge of the topic. Please do not just throw statistics out, explain how they matter. That being said, do also ensure you have evidence based arguments. Have structured speeches. Warrant and weight your arguments.

Keep track of your own timings. Enjoy the round!!

In debate, I will vote by how well you articulate your reasonings and rebut your opponents’ arguments—show me the link chain, connections, and how your evidence or case is stronger than your opponents. I do not like super-fast speaking—please slow down and speak clearly. Please be respectful of your opponent.

Please keep track of your own time. I will also keep an eye on timing.

Most importantly, make sure to have fun!

Hello, I'm a parent judge. I prefer slower and clearer speaking. I will vote on arguments with the best logic and supporting evidence.

Have fun!

Experienced Public Forum Debate judge for HS JV/Novice and Middle-School divisions.

I will vote based on the debaters' speaking clarity, providing sufficient research evidence, reasoning with logic, and finally weighing on impacts.

Hi. My name is Wenhan Zhu. I have been judging debates for more than two years. I enjoy hearing debaters speak passionately about their chose topics. When debating I prefer if a debater allows the other side to finish speaking before they speak. This is especially true during crossfires.

Welcome to my angry rant!....I mean, my paradigm!

(don’t worry, I am nicer in my RFD).

I have 5 years experience in World Schools and Public Forum Debate. Flay for policy.

I hold debaters accountable for Public Forum’s original purpose- which is to communicate to the public*. I am not a lay judge, but if a layman couldn't at least understand you, you are defeating the purpose of public forum and you should be in policy instead.

tabula rasa, but don't overdo it. You don't need to define "the" for me :P.

I love kritiks when used sincerely, but not when they are used frivolously.

Substance over theory, forever and always. I despise theory (except topicality). If you use theory, you better have a GOOD reason and address a REAL issue, because it will not impress me as a default strategy. Theory was designed to keep debate fair...so don't be like rain on your wedding day (ironic...Alanis Morissette...no one?) and use it abusively.

There is nothing I hate more than a petty theory debate with no substance....but spreading is a close second. If a teacher assigned you a 2 page paper and you used 1pt font to get as much info in as possible while also hoping the teacher didn't catch your mistakes, you wouldn't get away with it. Spreading is no different. The assignment is to convey your message to the public as persuasively as you can in 4 minutes. I consider spreading to be like using 1pt font: cheating. Not to mention that spreading is SUPER elitist to ESL debaters.

Truth over tech, sorry not sorry. It’s not because I am lay, its because I am allergic to kool-aid and won’t drink it. I still hold you accountable to technical aspects of debate, but not if tech isn't supporting truth. I don't care if you memorize more jargon than your opponent, I care if you have better arguments. Impressive impacts with strong links win.

Framework should not be neglected!!!!

---------------Advice for my victims....I mean, competitors--------------------------------------------

I have a tendency to favor global impacts over domestic, and I am a sucker for strong logic based on economics. Please remember- the United States is NOT the world, and the values of the United States are NOT universal. If your opponents make assumptions, point them out to me.

Don't assume I am a liberal- if you want to argue that republicans are inherently bad, you need to prove it.

Don't collapse on a good argument for the sake of collapsing. It might take 5 seconds out of your summary speech to keep a contention in play that could save your whole round.

Don't focus on niche issues when your opponents' impact effects the whole world.

Real world impacts are more impressive to me than theoretical ones. Don't tell me something is going to lead to nuclear war unless you really can prove it. -_- Links or its fake.

If you are going to use climate change as your impact, you better be able to prove uniqueness.

I have a pet peeve for arguments that falsely equate correlation with causation. If your opponent calls you out on this correctly....-_-

Don't give me a false dilemma. Don't strawman. Don't be dumb. Don't be tricky. Just do your research.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS.