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

ASU Finance

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.

Condense the debate to as few arguments as possible and have good topical knowledge.

Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some Affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: Fairness is an impact,
I also have an increasingly higher threshold for K debate because most of it done in LD is bad.

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 (2023-24), I am primarily judging speech events, but I also judge public forum. I am a math and science 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 forpublic 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 as I feel like the attempt to compress the complex topic of debate into just a few paragraphs is impossible so ask any questions before the round. I'll be more than happy to answer them!

-- 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 promise to be impartial in my decision and you can ask me questions about it. I come to my ballot through as little judge intervention as possible.

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

-- Case --

Aff - Not much to say on case. As a 2a/1n I appreciate the effort that goes into making a good case with cards that actually say what they are tagged to say. As long as your case has a good structure you should be more than fine.

Neg - Reading solvency deficits and case turns are always great. Indicting specific pieces of evidence that don't actually say what the aff says is great, and if this happens I will go and read the card after the round.

-- Da's --

Aff - Attacking out-of-date uniqueness for time-sensitive Da's like an Econ Da or Politics Da is always great. but reading evidence that says something has changed is better. Point out links that are general or aren't about the aff. Impact defense is always a good idea when applicable

Neg - The newer the uniqueness the better. Reading more specific links in the neg block if the 1nc's weren't great is a good idea. Always have a story for the Da of what causes what.

-- Cp's --

Aff - Personally I am a massive fan of intrinsic perms against process CP's, but when I'm judging you have to make that argument for me i won't give you leeway just because I think they are generally good. Always read perms. Theory is a good idea too. Answering general CP's like the 50 States CP can be hard as there is no lit base so reading more general "states bad" type stuff is always an option. On judge kick, I presume no judge kick unless I'm told differently before the 2nr

Neg - I am a massive fan of Process CP's done well, but when I'm judging I'll have as little bias as possible. When answering perms reading specific reasons as to why the perms are worse than just CP is definitely a good idea. I'm a big fan of Advantage CP's testing different ways to solve the aff's impacts. On judge kick, I presume no judge kick unless I'm told differently before the 2nr

-- K --

Aff - Attacking links of omission are always great. Have offense against the K. Try to phrase your perms in the literature base of the perm it helps to better explain why the two are mutually exclusive.

Neg - I think K's are great. Try to have more than links of omission and explain what your view on systems of power/problems of the world are. Explain what the alt actually is rather than just a tagline.

-- T --

Aff - Always have a we meet argument even if you don't. Have a counter-interpretation with offense as to why it's good and give defense as to why their interpretation isn't.

Neg - I am more than willing to pull the trigger on T. Try to read ev contextual to the resolution with a clear intent to define. Make sure to state the violation clearly; changing in it later speeches or reframing it looks sketchy from a judge's standpoint.

-- Theory --

Aff - I am one of the few judges who votes on theory cause I'm almost completely pure tech. Reading tech against CP's is a good idea and if it goes dropped or poorly answered I'll vote on it. Have a reason as to why it made this round, or will make future rounds, impossible for the aff

Neg - I will vote on theory. Reading theory against perms is a good idea. Have a reason as to why it made this round, or will make future rounds, impossible for the neg.

-- 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 that may help you if the yap sesh above isn't enough. My hero Camden Coale, The goat Lillian Goetz, Toby Whisenhunt, The Greenhill Machine, Brandon Kelly, Sam Church, Tim Mahoney, The Associate Director of Debate at THE Greenhill School Dr. Ally Chase, Ben

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

barringtonspeechdocs@gmail.com

Tech over truth. I care very little about the preserving the “sanctity of debate” or “education." The point of debate is not to find truth, but to win.

There is no inherent reason that the core topic disad is any more worthy than spark, the NGA counterplan, the fiat K, or the riders DA. All of these arguments will be given the same credibility when introduced because arguments with claims, warrants, and impacts start at 100% truth, not zero. However, it is harder to win an objectively absurd claim such as "the sky is red" than it is to win a truism like "racism is bad."

That being said, I am not tab. Although I will try to minimize intervention, I am undoubtedly influenced by my personal beliefs, what my coaches have taught me, and other random things such as bad RFDs I've gotten as a debater that influence how I think about arguments. I will not vote on call-outs, -isms/-phobias good, arguments not on my flow, and arguments telling me to ignore my flow or speech times. Anything not explicitly listed is fair game.

Relevant notes: instruction prevents intervention. default judge kick. evidence quality matters. insert rehighlightings; read recuttings. yes zero risk.

miscellaneous thoughts—these are unlikely to matter but i liked reading long paradigms as a debater so here goes

Soft left is good. Policy teams are remarkably bad at defending extinction outweighs. Longtermism is generally clowned upon in serious academic philosophy and only makes sense in the weird fantasy land of debate. Similarly, most K teams think very little about the link turn/perm debate. I’d be very interested in seeing these debates.

Newness is bad. Planless affs in particular should avoid shiftiness. A well defined and contestable advocacy makes for great debates. I will be merciless to new 2AR spin that I couldn't predict out of the 1AR.

Permutations don't need net benefits because they are tests of competition, not advocacies. That being said, you probably need one unless the 2NR doesn't have a deficit/offense against it.

The link typically controls the direction of uniqueness. Even if the status quo is bad, it still matters if the aff makes it worse.

Most “voters” are not independent. “voter for gaslighting and psychic violence” is not an argument. If you want the 1AR to be filled with random crapshoot offense, at least ensure the 2NR actually has to answer it. Similarly, I won’t vote on 1AR theory absent a drop the debater justification. This includes condo, in which case I would simply not evaluate the shell because it’s a floating warrant without an impact.

Spark is a surprisingly defensible argument. 1ARs to it are remarkably bad, and the Cal FG style 2ARs that people give are easily beaten by good negative evidence that emerged in the years since 2019. S-risk weighing seems objectively true under the bostrom-esque frameworks most debaters read. I’m unsure why wipeout would ever be a preferable 2NR. The best part of this debate for the aff to take on seems to be the internal link rather than the impact.

1AR theory seems entirely irresolvable unless arguments are completely dropped. “Weighing” doesn’t solve because the 2AR gets it new. I’m pretty unconvinced by the idea that NCs can be infinitely abusive, and most counterplan theory is better resolved by smart permutations.

Neg terror is good. The constitutive role of the neg is to deny the truth or goodness of the aff by any means. Although I will vote on them, arguments to the contrary are thoroughly unconvincing. All K-Affs would get destroyed by the most basic of skep NCs. I wish I could be in the back for K debates, but it appears that the only solution to that problem is preffing judges too dogmatic to vote on such arguments so I assume it won’t happen.

Non-framework strategies are oftentimes preferable to your coach’s coach’s fairness 2NR. The heg DA, impact turns, and process counterplans are all far more interesting to me and options that K teams are less prepared to answer.

Framework shells are often too long. A 10 point on racism not a voter is certainly not a worthwhile investment of time. Having been on both sides, I think the most convincing 2NR is skills with a TVA. Perfectly fine with procedural fairness too. If you wish to go for clash, go for skills. Impact turns are better than counterinterps in most scenarios, but you know your aff better than me.

The quality of definitions read in many [topicality] debates is laughably bad. Interpretations should define the word you think the aff violates. If your "definition" doesn't actually define the word and is just a contextual use, that's suboptimal. If the neg hasn't read a real definition, I don't know why the aff has to read one. - eleanor

I am a parent judge.

Last Updated 04/03/24

"There can be no give up" - Martin Osborn

secondnegativeconstructive@gmail.com and highlandparkcx@gmail.com

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

Secondly - I'm 16, 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 will try my hardest to make a useful and helpful RFD. I'll vote for any argument and would prefer to see a team do a good job going for an argument I don't like/think is dumb than see a team do a bad job going for an argument I like/think is smart. I've never understood saying "I don't like X debate" because, at the end of the day, all debate that we do is policy debate and I believe you should be encouraged to engage in "X" style if that's what you want to do. Do your best and have fun. (You have common sense and obviously know where the line is drawn, No isms or phobias, don’t be stupid).

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 formed my ideological predisposition, I will try to judge in a similar fashion to them -

Adrienne Brovero

Dan Lingel

Tracy McFarland

Toby Whisenhunt

David Coale

Tim Lewis

Martin Osborn

Jared "RA" Adam

Lillian Goetz

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

I really like aspec :)

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

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

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

Aff winning percentage: .551

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OVERVIEW

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

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

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

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

That said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

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 but 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 freshman 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.

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

now on a serious note

hey i'm jae! im a first year out and competed at torrey pines in san diego (torrey pines kt/tk). debated pf nat circ for the first three years of hs and coached my senior year. i've gotten some bids, qualled toc, ndcas, and made late outrounds at a couple of nat circ tournaments. i now debate policy at UC Davis and coach pf.

debate is all about learning to get better, don't be afraid to use me as a resource
if you have any questions (in round or debate in general) or need/want any help, feel free to ask anytime.

email: jnkim@ucdavis.edu

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jae.kim.503645

defaults:

- comparative worlds

- competing interps > reasonability

- theory/t > k > case

- drop the arg > drop the debater

- no rvis

- fairness > education

- text > spirit

- ethical certainty

- presume first speaking team

round stuff:

- debate is a game, play however you want to win

- i flow/tabula rasa

- i disclose and will also disclose speaks if you ask

- read and wear whatever you'd like

- add me to the chain (same email above); send case/ev docs before round; use email chains, not google docs

- 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.

- do whatever you want in cross, i literally don't care and im probably not paying attention anyways

- 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.

- i'm pretty generous with speaks bc screws suck :(

- i don't think debate boils down to persuasion, but instead understanding the nuances of the argument and being able to do effective comparison. i view debate more as an academic means to unpack policy, and much less a speech event. it's a test of your research and efficiency, not your language.

- asking questions after the round is fine. light post-rounding is fine. be aggressive/disrespectful at your own risk, i will probably match your energy as well as dock speaks.

- you can swear in round. don't make it excessive though.

- absolutely nothing remotely _ist; L20

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

- every round is decided by determining what the highest layer of offense is -> who links into that best

- 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.

- collapse in the back half and do metaweighing

- 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.

- i believe debate is a game with educational aspects; that means i will literally vote off of anything from death good to a game of chess if that's the consensus rotb

- 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

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.

TL;DR: collapse, extend, weigh pls :D

Trigger Warnings

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.

Prog

- must send everyone a speech doc if reading any prog args

- i evaluate any prog arguments (Theory, K, T, tricks, PICs, etc.)

- pref shell format

- i dont care if you read friv shells, it's probably funny

- im more familiar with theory and ran it at a couple tournaments

- im wayyy less familiar with Ks so flesh out and explain your Ks well since im not the best judge for those types of rounds. im most familiar with model minority and ive hit quite a few fem Ks throughout my career

- 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.

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.

as an aside to this ^, if you read anything from this article as a reason why theory is bad, i'm probably just going to intervene. this is one of the worst takes i've ever heard, and i'm really sick of people perpetuating the narrative that "public forum should be for the public" or whatever dumb thing boomers in this activity propagate. this is the one spot i feel 0 shame in intervening.

remember to have fun and make friends!

Speaks boosts:

guess my favorite esports team: +0.5 speaks

guess my favorite hockey team: +0.5 speaks

if you're dulaney faith zhao: -30 speaks with a loss

for more info, my judging philosophy/paradigm was inspired by Dylan Beach, Katheryne Dwyer, Skylar Wang, and Eli Glickman.

TLDR: flow judge, please collapse and weigh, quality > quantity, ok with some speed

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!

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

Background

Competed in PF for Adlai E. Stevenson (2020 - 2023). Judged mostly PF for around a year (everything from locals to natcirc finals). I've also judged trad LD, speech, and congress.

Style/Strategy Preference

I can judge speed assuming you send docs, but I’d rather not unless you’re very very confident in your clarity. You should SLOW DOWN in summary and final focus.

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, internal link(s), and impact of the argument you’re going for. To extend the link/IL/impact, you need to briefly explain what the link/IL/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 that were 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’s multiple competing weighing mechanisms, you should metaweigh. I default prereq > mag > prob if there's none.

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 to it, 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 evaluate progressive debate in largely the same way I evaluate traditional debate: I look for who’s winning what offense and then who outweighs in the end. However, I am still MUCH more confident in evaluating traditional substance debate.

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.

I think everything besides disclosure and paraphrasing theory is frivolous. If there's a safety issue, you don't need to run theory; I will stop the round immediately and contact tab.

I will NOT give RVIs.

I will NOT evaluate tricks.

I have very elementary experience with kritiks. I will try my best to evaluate one if you read it, but slow down and explain it to me like it’s my first time hearing the literature.

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

Name: Lalit Kumar

Email: lalit.kumar.debate@gmail.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.

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!

NOTE FOR NSDA LAST CHANCE:

I am particularly tired this week! Normally I have no problem at all with speed, but there is a nonzero chance that I ask for you to speak at a lay pace for your round. This is not an invitation for you to paraphrase, not send carded evidence, etc, nor does it mean I'll flow/evaluate the debate any differently. only that my poor little brain might not be able to handle quick delivery. That said, I want to have fun. I'd give my right arm to hear spark or some other outrageous impact turns at lay speed, so go nuts (slowly)!

David Levin (he/him/his)

Head Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT

Email Chain: levind@stlukesct.org

All Formats

be decent to one another (this includes your partner). don't use oppressive rhetoric. put me on the email chain.

Paradigms for PF, PD, and LD below.

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

Public Forum

>100 rounds judged in 2022-23. run what you want. cut cards. i'm a good judge for Kritiks. i'm a pretty good judge for theory. this format has so much potential for innovation - don't be afraid to try something different/new.

General:

"Progressive debate" debate doesn't mean much to me. I love to evaluate kritik and framework debates. I like evaluating purposeful T and theory rounds (I'd especially like to see more fiat debates). I also like judging a good salt-of-the-earth "substance" round. I don't enjoy evaluating what you might call "tricks", but I'll judge them fairly. I'm not here to tell you what you can't run (outside of oppressive/exclusionary arguments). It's good to interrogate the normative expectations of PF debate, and to have discussions of what forms of exclusion undergird debate, and specifically this format, to begin with. I likethis article from Stefan Bauschard a lot.

Housekeeping:

Please pre-flow and create the email chain before the round. Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs should cut full paragraphs, and include highlighting (see "Evidence"). If you have a shell (T, theory, etc), please send it in the card doc. Let's work together to trim down the time spent on evidence exchanges.

DO NOT send a "locked" document to me or your opponents. This is a competitive equity AND academic integrity concern.

Sit or stand for your speeches. Share the tabletote if only one team has one.

Speaking:

Speed/spreading is fine with some exceptions. Arguments presented in shell form (T, theory, etc) should be read more deliberately than case, otherwise I may miss an important warrant.

If you have an auditory processing concern, please address it with your opponents rather than me whenever possible. If someone comes to you with an auditory processing concern, accommodate them. Be good to each other.

How I flow:

I flow digitally, and divide my flow by contentions. For contentions with multiple subpoints, just make sure you sign post. I flow warrants and read card docs during crossfire and prep, so don't just extend your author/tag.

I don't judge-extend or judge-kick whenever possible (maybe once in a while in a novice round).

I flow overviews at the top of the first contention. I'd rather flow weighing on the contentions individually, rather than en-masse at the bottom of the speech.

How I evaluate:

A-priori arguments are, as the name implies, evaluated first. Absent an a-priori debate, I go to framing.

Framing should be complementary to your impact/weighing. If framing is not argued, or if both teams drop framing, I default to utilitarianism. Once the framework debate is resolved (if there is one), I move to the contentions.

I like comparative link weighing a lot. Speculative impacts require a bit more work on uniqueness than empiric impacts. I think the status quo can be an impact in itself.

If neither team is able to garner offense, presumption defaults to the side of the resolution which most resembles the status quo. Presumption can be flipped if the status quo is the impact.

Crossfire is binding.

Speaker Points:

I average around a 28.7 for varsity rounds. For a well-executed technical debate, expect something in the 28.8-29.4 realm. Above a 29.5 is reserved for performances that "stick to the ribs", demonstrating both technical mastery and rhetorical salience. Remember that debate is largely a practice in storytelling.

Specific Arguments

Topical "normative" Cases:

Truth is determined by the flow, and I don't judge-extend or kick arguments. Otherwise, do what you do. Turns rock.

Topical "critical" Cases:

Win your framework and role of the ballot. "Role of the judge" feels redundant, but if you make a distinction between my role and my ballot's role, I'll listen.

Again, links and solvency usually the most vulnerable components of the case. K solvency shouldn't be restricted to discourse - but what does the fiat-ed adoption of the critical worldview look like?

Textual alts that suggest specific actions get a little too close to plans/counterplans for comfort - instead, "vote [your side] to endorse/reject [something]", then go win the link.

These rounds are where I can offer my most helpful feedback, whether you're running a K or debating against one.

Non-topical criticisms:

Win your framework. Explain why the criticism is a prerequisite to topical debate, answer the TVA/TVN, and the perm.

Remember that I default presume to the side of the ballot closest to the status quo, whether you're reading a Non-T K or debating against one.

Presumption can be flipped either way. If you do a performance or narrative of some sort, implicate that stylistic choice.

"Off-case" Criticisms:

I'm not quite as fond of these for time constraint reasons (they often result in messy back-halves), so if you read one, do so in 2nd constructive or first rebuttal.

If you're critiquing a specific problematic discourse your opponent advances, consider running it as a short theory shell instead (example: I don't need you to spend 120 seconds dissecting gendered structures of power to claim misgendering is bad - it's pretty straightforward).

Topicality:

I prefer T be read in shell form with an interpretation, violation, standards and voter(s).

I believe that fairness is an internal link to various more objective impacts, rather than an impact itself. If you go for "drop the team" on T, it should be the whole FF.

T against kritiks should center standards for why I should hold the line for the resolution.

Theory:

Strong theory debates should focus on defining best practices for the activity.

"Theory bad" arguments are inherently theory arguments themselves and I'll evaluate them the same way I evaluate other forms of theory.

I prefer competing interpretations, but if the theory is clearly infinitely regressive or needlessly punitive, my threshold for reasonability lowers. This is especially true for theory "tricks".

Disclosure is good; Open-source disclosure is the gold standard; from my experience and observation, disclosure serves to benefit small programs and under-resourced programs; community minimums for disclosure are debatable. Paraphrasing, rather than reading actual evidence, is unethical.

Evidence:

Cut cards are an ethical standard for debate and non-negotiable at the varsity circuit level. Paraphrasing is not an automatic loss, but I will have no basis to trust your analytics absent you producing a marked copy of your evidence.

I have a low threshold for voting for paraphrasing theory against you, absent a performative contradiction from the other team.

Novices should learn to cut cards, but for them this a goal, not an expectation.

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

Policy:

I'm a little rusty, but regularly judged policy between 2016 and 2020. K v. K and K v. FW/T rounds were my favorites.

Hello again! It's been a minute! If you have me in a policy round, my most important request is that you help me flow you. I can normally follow at decently quick speeds, but if I "clear" you, it's a request for you to help me catch what you're saying. Sign posting is important and please please read tags and shells more slowly than your internals.

I debated policy in HS and coached/judged for a few years before moving to more PF. That said, policy directly informed the way I coach and evaluate PF. I don't have particularly strong opinions about most arguments, so run what you're good at running. I understand that this is quite vague, so if you're unsure how you'll pref me, or what to run in front of me, just ask.

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

Lincoln-Douglas:

Run what you want, but understand that I don't know the norms as well here.

You can likely infer my judging style from the PF and Policy sections above. Any questions, just send an email.

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

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.

Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

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.

________________________________________________________________________

Paradigm from 2017 through February 2024.

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

codymorrowtx1@gmail.com

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

Speaker Points

I attempted to resist the point inflation that seems to happen everywhere these days, but I decided that was not fair to the teams/debaters that performed impressively in front of me.

27.7 to 28.2 - Average

28.3 to 28.6 - Good job

28.7 to 29.2 - Well above average

29.3 to 29.7 - Great job/ impressive job

29.8 to 29.9 - Outstanding performance, better than I have seen in a long time. Zero mistakes and you excelled in every facet of the debate.

30 - I have not given a 30 in years and years, true perfection.

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 yourself. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Please, don't steal prep time. I do not consider e-mailing evidence as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.

I enjoy substantive debates as well as debates of a critical tint. 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.

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 6 years. Dabbled in Policy. Smidgen of LD. Heard of Congress.

I prefer clear logical explanations above anything else. Solid evidence second. And squirrelly technicalities last.

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,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

• PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
• if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
• Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DONT want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc
  
  IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

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

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!

I've debated for 7 years and have judged on/off for 4 years.

I will be flowing.

Good luck !

Jai Sehgal

Updated for 2023-24 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, don't hesitate, go ahead.
4. Second rebuttal needs to respond to everything + frontline.

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!

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third 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 don't like progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, and big questions. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

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 in policy, prog LD, and parli, but I think I'm less inclined to than most. 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, neolib, and SetCol; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I think I’m more likely to vote for 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 reasonability, 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 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). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

Policy: I’m mostly a policymaker judge. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read a bunch or are super contradictory.

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 dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific 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.

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

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.

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.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

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.

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.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

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.