I am a lay judge. Let's have fun.

Email for evidence chain: bales@bxscience.edu

Tell me why I should vote for you. Make sense. Explain your terms. Think of me as a relatively smart person who isn't debate-y. I'll vote for what makes sense. If I don't understand it, I can't vote for you.

Make every argument clear and tell me why it is important! Why should I vote for you?

No spreading. I do not have a problem with it on principle. I just will not be able to follow your argument. Please be clear in your articulation. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. This goes for both policy and critical oriented debaters.

Argument-Specific (I prefer traditional arguments)

Critical affs- very unfamiliar. Run them if you have NOTHING else, but be sure you explain yourself VERY clearly.

Neg arguments:
Disad- Explain the story/scenario of how the aff causes a specific impact and why that impact is the most important. I prefer you use traditional impact calculus in your framing.
Counterplan- Provide a competitive counterplan and explain the NET BENEFITS of why the counterplan is better than the aff
Topicality- Prove the aff is untopical and tell me why it’s important
Kritik- Unfamiliar- explain every argument clearly. I strongly advise you not to run one. If you chose to run a K, narrow the argument down to the impacts of the K.

Questions / email chain: grace.barmmer@gmail.com,

Feel free to also message me on FB if you have questions

Background:

I am a sophomore in the Huntsman Program at Penn. I did PF and International Extemp at Miramonte High School for four years, on both the local and the national circuit. Keep in mind I have not listened to a debate round since February of 2022, and before that since April of 2021, so please be clear and warrant your arguments well. It has been a while but I will do my best and still remember how things work.

General things:

- I have very little experience with theory, so if you run disclosure, paraphrase, etc, I can probably follow what you're saying but also may be confused. In other words, probably not the best idea to run it in front of me. If some form of abuse occurs in the round (etc. not using a content warning when there should be one) then do not hesitate to tell me about it, just explain what you're saying well so I can understand.

- PLEASE signpost. I can write pretty quickly but it's even easier when you're telling me exactly what you're talking about.

- If you're speaking second, you should frontline first rebuttal. At least respond to turns.

- I will pay attention during cross but won't flow it so if something important happens, tell me about it in your next speech.

- Please be respectful. DO NOT say anything offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, rude, etc), and try not to shout over each other. If I miss something really abusive/offensive that your opponent has done, please do not hesitate to let me know! Debate should be a safe space and I want to help make that possible in any way that I can.

Summary/FF:

- Summary and FF should not focus on everything you've told me so far. Narrow it down, and make sure summary and FF mirror each other so that it's really clear what you're going for and why you've won. Do not say anything new in FF, I won't flow it, especially if it's new evidence or weighing.

- In first summary, respond to frontlines from second rebuttal. If a piece of defense is not frontlined, you don't need to extend it in first summary. Definitely respond to turns.

- When you are extending arguments, extend warrants AND impacts. For me, a well warranted argument carries much more weight than a single statistic with no warranting. Explain EVERY part of the argument.

- PLEASE WEIGH. In summary and FF and do not switch up weighing mechanisms between the two. I don't want to have to weigh on my own, so really do what you can to tell me why what you're saying matters more. And keep it consistent.

Evidence:

- Please have good evidence ethics. I don't want to wait for you to find cut cards. I won't call for cards unless they're crucial for my decision, or if you tell me to because your opponents' evidence ethics are truly atrocious. But I don't love intervening, so just have your cards ready.

Speed:

- Two years ago I could handle pretty much everything but am definitely a little behind now. As long as you speak clearly, I'll be fine though, just don't spread. If you think you are going to spread, please send me a speech doc. Your opponents could probably use one too.

Miscellaneous things:

- If you're strategically conceding defense, tell me why or at least point out that you're intentionally doing it.

- For link turns, extend the impact. For impact turns, extend the link.

- For extending cards, author name and date is fine. Please also explain what the card says. Name and date help but that's not enough for me to keep extending your argument. I won't go back on my own to remember what piece of evidence to which you're referring.

- Above all, have fun. Debate is stressful and you learn a lot but you should also enjoy it. Try to make me laugh. It makes everything better for you and me.

If you have any more questions, please feel free to email me or message me on FB! Or if there's anything I can do to make the round more accessible, do not hesitate to let me know.

* 30 year high school English and theatre teacher

* Looking for clear explanations of contentions, and rebuttals.

* Articulation and enunciation is essential.

* Cruel and profane language is NEVER acceptable.

* Be kind above all else

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

Engineering grad and IT professional living in DC; I did PF in Virginia 2013-2017 and have been judging debate since 2018.

General:

1. Please pre-flow before round start time. I value keeping things moving along, and starting early if possible, so that the round does not go overtime.

2. I'm fine with speed, if you speak clearly and preferably provide a speech doc.

3a. Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, on a strong note, and stop speaking.

3b. I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will make a hand gesture with my fist, then silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are 30 seconds over time; if I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for roughly the last 30 seconds.

4. I don't care if you sit or stand. Do whichever you prefer.

5. I am unlikely to vote on a K. I like hearing Ks, I think they're cool, I like when debaters deconstruct the format/topic/incentive structure of debate, I'm learning about them, but evaluating them as a voting issue is outside my comfort zone as a judge and I don't have the experience and confidence to evaluate Ks in a way that is consistent and fair.

6. I like case/evidence disclosure. It leads to better debates and better evidence ethics. When a team makes a pre-round disclosure of case/evidence or shares a rebuttal doc, I expect that the other team will reciprocate. I expect that you have an evidence doc and can quickly share any evidence the opposing team calls for. If you have not prepared to share your evidence, you should run prep to get your evidence doc together. I want rounds to proceed on schedule and will note it in RFD and speaks if a significant and preventable waste of time occurs in the round.

PF:

I vote on terminal impacts. Use your constructive to state and quantify impacts that I as a human can care about. I care exclusively about saving lives, reducing suffering and increasing happiness, in descending order of importance. Provide warrants and evidence for your claims, then extend your claims and impacts through to final focus. In final focus, weigh: tell me *how* you won in terms of the impacts I care about. You should also weigh to help me decide between impacts that are denominated in different units, for instance if one side impacts to poverty and the other side impacts to, idk, life expectancy, your job as debaters is to tell me why one of those is more important to vote on. If you both impact to the same thing, like extinction, make sure you are weighing the unique aspects of your case, like probability, timeframe, and solvency against the other side's case.

1. If you call a card and begin prepping while you wait to receive it, I will run your prep. Calling for evidence is not free prep.

2. Be nice to each other in cross; let the other person finish. Cut them off if they are monopolizing time.

3. If you want me to consider an argument when I vote, extend it all the way through final focus.

LD:

The way I vote in LD is different from how I vote in PF. In the most narrow sense, I vote for whichever team has the best impact on the value-criteron for the value that I buy into in-round.

This means you don't necessarily have to win on your own case's value or your own case's VC. Probably you will find it easier to link your impacts to your own value and VC, but you can also concede to your opponent's value and link into their VC better than they do, or delink your opponent's VC from their value, or show that your case supports a VC that better ties into their value.

Congress:

I don't judge Congress nearly enough to have an in-depth paradigm, but it happens now and then that I judge Congress, particularly for local tournaments and intramurals. I will typically give POs top-3 if they successfully follow procedure and hold the room together.

Ranking is more based on gut feeling but mainly I'm looking to evaluate: did you speak compellingly like you believe and care about the things you're saying, did you do good research to support your position, and did you take the initiative to speak, particularly when the room otherwise falls silent.

BQ:

I've never judged BQ before and have been researching the format, watching some rounds and bopping around Reddit for the last week or so to understand the rules and norms. Since I'm carrying some experience with other formats in, you should know I will flow all speeches, and only the speeches. I will give a lot of leeway to the debaters to determine the definitions and framing of the round, and expect them to clash over places where those definitions and framings are in conflict, and ultimately I will determine from that clash what definitions and framing I should adopt when signing my ballot.

include me on email chain: newschoolbl@gmail.com

they/them/she/her

graduate of The New School, debated all four years, mostly a kritikal/performance debater, it has been said that my partnership's specialty was Marxism, started as a college novice, broke to elims at 2021 & 2022 CEDA Nationals + 2022 NDT qualifier, 1st team from TNS to qualify for the NDT, current first year law student at Rutgers Law (Nwk)

majored in politics & economics with a minor in philosophy, which is to say that i read a lot of books in these areas and understand the basics of most theory. but never assume i know exactly what you're talking about if you haven't explained technical terms you're using. if you're isolating education as an impact, do some educating.

TL;DR

1. do your thing. don't stress too hard about adapting everything to me, this activity is for you so i'll come along on whatever journey you'd like me on.
2. i do not care whether you sit or stand or how you're dressed, please do whatever feels comfortable for you. as long as i can hear you, i'll judge only on the words you say.
3. tech > truth, but only by a little. i'll vote on the flow.
4. i tend to lean K over policy, but that's mostly because i don't automatically default policy/extinction impacts.
5. i don't flow cross-x.
6. give me a roadmap—this should tell me exactly what order my pages should be in for your speech so i'm not flipping back and forth
7. give me all the good impacts in your final speech- write the ballot for me. AFF, how do y'all resolve your impacts and why am i prioritizing them? NEG, where's the link and how should i be comparing your impacts with your opponents? give me an easy decision and spell it out for me, i'll probably take it!
8. prioritize accessibility every round, please take measures to ensure everyone is able to participate in debate. this means sending evidence if you're spreading and respecting the needs of your opponents. check your speed— make sure taglines and analytics are clear enough for me to flow.
9. ONLINE DEBATERS—with the way computer audio works, you cannot spread at top speed/volume without being cut off. i will try to interject with 'clear' if i can't understand, but if you're not adjusting after three 'clear's, i will default to what i understand. if you have audio elements in a performance, it will have to be adapted for online.

i have zero tolerance for racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism, or any sort of discriminatory language or action in the debate space. the content of your arguments matter, don't run harmful or discriminatory things because you think it could get the ballot (it definitely will not). what we say in this space matters and the language we use matters. please make an effort to be respectful of your opponents, especially during cross x. i understand debate is stressful and adversarial in nature but do not belittle or be outright rude to one another, it's just not cool. be outright discriminatory or disrespectful to your opponent or partner, then be prepared for your speaks to suffer.

K DEBATERS HERE'S THE SENTENCE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR: i'm probably your guy for weird stuff— i love the kritikal and experimental so bring it on. love some performance in debate! this doesn't mean i can't be convinced by policy args or fw, but i naturally lean on the side that critique and subversiveness good/discourse matters type stuff.

T/FW: not my favorite of all time, but if you fully impact it out and cover the whole flow, i'll vote on it. i'm going to need more than procedural fairness as a voter on T, it's not an impact on its own. i'm also just not a huge fan of voting on T (because of my K debater sensibilities), but if you clearly win it i'll vote on it. + winning framework won't win you the round, it only gives me a lens to view the round through. if you win framework, i'll vote on whatever wins under that interp.

rule of thumb is that i'll vote for whoever is giving me the easiest time doing so. tell me what to do (y'know, nicely) and i will follow those instructions unless the other team gives me a compelling reason not to. pretty simple and i vow to do my best at not intervening as much as possible. above all, i want you to do YOUR thing more than i want you to adapt to me.

honestly, if you have time, just read Vik Keenan's (my former coach's) paradigm. pretty much all of my foundational knowledge about what debate can be came from Vik and this is just starting to sound a lot like her.

LD

i'm a policy debater so most of my debate sensibilities come from policy debate. however, i'll keep my weird policy expectations out and i'm voting on the flow.

i try to be as common-sense as possible, just explain your args and win them and i'll vote for you. if there's some super technical LD-specific stuff you want to try, it probably goes without saying but i'm definitely not going to appreciate it as much as an LD person would.

i'm used to policy spreading speeds so i'm down to clown as long as the other side is cool with it as well (spreading can become an accessibility problem real quick and real easy). make sure you are CLEAR, i really want to be able to understand you! speed without enunciation is just straight-up impossible to evaluate. if you're looking for a K judge, same as policy, i'm totally your guy. i read books and stuff so if you want to go down a philosophy rabbit hole together, i'm totally down as long as you're still doing the explanation work you need to do throughout the round.

LD theory gets a little out of hand for my tastes. not to say i won't vote on theory or you shouldn't go for it, but try to go for substance first and don't blow up a tiny little theory thing. theory that's well-covered and well-explained throughout the round is cool and good, though.

PF

set up the email chain before the round starts please! yes, i would like to be on it, my email's at the top.

if you're doing evidence comparisons, send me the evidence you're referencing! i know this isn't policy so it's not standard to send all evidence, but i would prefer having the evidence in front of me so i can actually read/compare it. in my opinion, just saying that an author says something doesn't really constitute strong evidence for me. i won't penalize you for not sending evidence à la policy debate, but don't expect me to weigh evidence without any of it in front of me.

i'm okay with speed as long as the other side is (please send a speech doc if you're about to spread). i do not care if you sit or stand or where in the room you want to set up, just do what's comfortable for you and i'll adjust myself if necessary.

just give me some good weighing and framing and i'll vote on the flow. make sure you're extending your impacts throughout the round and doing comparative work between you/your opponents impacts through the whole round, not just the final focus. give me the actual internal link story for your impacts—don't just repeat your statistics and impacts over and over again, tell me HOW your impact stories happen.

final focus should be my RFD—make sure you’re doing the work here to weigh both sides and write my decision for me. make sure there's no new arguments here and you're giving me a summary of what i should focus on in the round and why that means you win. you should be telling me 1. your impacts, 2. why i am prioritizing them over your opponents', 3. links to the case (on the CON), and 4. how you resolve your impacts.

good luck, have fun, make friends :)

Currently a senior at Penn. My email is djchoi@wharton.upenn.edu

Debated PF all 4 years of high school. Competed on the national circuit. Flow judge but haven't debated in a couple of years so don't spread.

For PFD and LD.

Simple Paradigm, I am a traditionalist when it comes to PFD or LD so I know, when judging on the circuit I will be blocked, but this is not Policy.

Debate the resolution, not something you bought from a college student or topic you find enlightening - the resolutions are chosen, and voted on, for a reason.

It is helpful to "bullet-point" and number your arguments.

Do not bring in new topics/arguments when summarizing. This is unfair to the opposing team who will have had no opportunity to rebut. Doing this will lose points.

So, with that in mind, life is simple, right? If LD your Value should simply win out and and your VC better convince me that all those contentions and sub-points make sense, especially since you (please!) slow downed so I can actually hear them. If you speak too quickly and I cannot catch what you say, it is as though you didn't say it. =) Yes I like smiley faces, life is fun, take a step back and enjoy it! Nevertheless, if I do not catch what you say this will likely result in lost points. This also applies to PFD.

Similarly, acronyms are great short hand but do not assume I will be familiar with them. Define them at the outset before using them freely.

I like consistency in the points made and creative solutions to challenges. Twists in an argument and subtle nuances can be fun as well as win the day! Quantification of issues versus qualification of emotions, and specifics versus generalizations are both approaches which work well. Best is when your position paints a consistent and coherent picture, and exceptions and rebuttals are removed by logic and data. Logical arguments supporting your position are far more important than rewording the same statement, except when there is a need to clarify ambiguities or terms.

If PFD, well your contentions and impact better win out too! Good cards everyone, good cards and roadmap please. If you have evidence for me to see, then make sure I see it. You are responsible for confirming it was received and can be read by me.

Finally, if you want me to tell you when it is time, or 5 seconds or other time before your time is up tell me in advance and be explicit. This includes prep time. It is your responsibility to communicate this and to be sure I received and accepted the message. This is not the time to be subtle. You will only lose points if I have to tell you that you went overtime.

Oh wait, almost forgot, remember this is not policy ! If I am judging policy, well that is a whole other matter.

Hi! Thank you for taking the time to read my paradigm before the round. I am a relatively new judge, so please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final focus, and please do the weighing for me! It exudes confidence when you clearly lay out why your stance has a greater impact.

for feb specifically - i had the basics of rtw explained to me by my daughter but i am by no means an expert on any of the jargon --please explain everything for me clearly and slowly

I'm a parent(LAY) judge who doesn't judge often.

I can't understand you if you go too fast. Please emphasize certain words/stats if you believe they are important.

I'll rarely call cards, but I'll do so if you request I do. However, please take your own prep/speech time. Please limit your use of jargon, I won't understand much.

I'm truth>tech. I vote for the team that convinces me.

I consider crossfire the most important aspect of the round and I do occasionally flow it. However, please do not be rude, I value respect in debate.

I don't understand theories or K's so please do not run them, chances are I won't vote for you if you do.

Be respectful to your opponents please!

Me disclosing depends on how clean the round/decision is.

If you have any questions feel free to ask me before round!

Good luck and have fun!

General:

I am a lay judge. I do follow the flow, but I don't judge exclusively on that;

You may sit or stand to present but both teams will do the same. If the room is cramped, it’s better you stay in your seat;

If you are going to speak quickly, your elocution needs to be good enough for me to understand you;

I do not run a clock on time, track your own time and keep your opponents honest about theirs;

If you are relying on an electronic device to make your speeches and it goes down, I will run your prep time until it is corrected. If you run out of time, I expect you to continue without it. If you can’t, I will consider that a forfeit;

I have a thorough knowledge of statistics so making arguments that go off the deep end (speculative) or citing sources with a statistically insignificant sample size, or "cherry-picked" data or conclusions will diminish the impact of your card.

Misrepresenting cards will cost you, whether done intentionally or not;

You may use an off-time road map to state the sequence of your argument but do not use it to make your case.

About me:

I have an engineering background and work in the heavy construction industry. I am swayed by facts, data, logic, and reason and do my best to avoid emotion in decisions at it mostly leads to failure or disaster in the realm of the physical sciences where I work.

My hobbies include history, particularly military history, automobiles, woodworking, outdoor sports, and evolutionary behavior/genetics.

Hi, my name is Debra. I look forward to your speech or debate!

For me, clarity is key. Weigh the impacts at the end of the round for me. Explicitly state what your voters are. And be kind to each other.

Thank you!

CONGRESS PARADIGM IS BELOW THIS PF Paradigm

PF:

ALMOST EVERY ROUND I HAVE JUDGED IN THE LAST 8 YEARS WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS, AND 100% MORE ANALYSIS OF THOSE 50% FEWER ARGUMENTS. A Narrative, a Story carries so much more persuasively through a round than the summary speaker saying "we are going for Contention 2".

I am NOT a fan of speed, nor speed/spread. Please don't make me think I'm in a Policy Round!

I don't need "Off-time roadmaps", I just want to know where you are starting.

Claim/warrant/evidence/impact is NOT a debate cliche; It is an Argumentative necessity! A label and a blip card is not a developed argument!

Unless NUCLEAR WINTER OR NUCLEAR EXTINCTION HAS ALREADY OCCURED, DON'T BOTHER TO IMPACT OUT TO IT.

SAVE K'S FOR POLICY ROUNDS; RUN THEORY AT YOUR OWN RISK- I start from ma place that it is fake and abusive in PF and you are just trying for a cheap win against an unprepared team. I come to judge debates about the topic of the moment.

YOU MIGHT be able to convince me of your sincerity if you can show me that you run it in every round and are President of the local "Advocacy for that Cause" Club.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round.

Please NARROW the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

There is a difference between "passionate advocacy" and anger. Audio tape some of your rounds and decide if you are doing one or the other when someone says you are "aggressive".

NSDA evidence rules require authors' last name and THE DATE (minimum) so you must AT LEAST do that if you want me to accept the evidence as "legally presented". If one team notes that the other has not supplied dates, it will then become an actual issue in the round. Speaker points are at stake.

In close rounds I want to be persuaded and I may just LISTEN to both Final Focus speeches, checking off things that are extended on my flow.

I am NOT impressed by smugness, smiling sympathetically at the "stupidity" of your opponent's argument, vigorous head shaking in support of your partner's argument or opposition to your opponents'. Speaker points are DEFINITELY in play here!

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:

1: The first thing I am looking for in every speech is ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY. 2. The second thing I am looking for is CLASH; references to other speakers & their arguments

3. The third thing I am looking for is ADVOCACY, supported by EVIDENCE

IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS IS A SPEAKING EVENT, NOT A READING EVENT! I WILL NOT GIVE EVEN A "BRILLIANT" SPEECH A "6" IF IT IS READ OFF A PREPARED SHEET/TUCKED INTO THE PAD OR WRITTEN ON THE PAD ITSELF; AND, FOR CERTAIN IF IT IS READ OFF OF A COMPUTER OR TABLET.

I value a good story and humor, but Clarity and Clash are most important.

Questioning and answering factors into overall placement in the Session.

Yes, I will evaluate and include the PO, but it is NOT an automatic advancement to the next level; that has gotten a bit silly.

I am a parent volunteer Speech & Debate judge with four years of experience.

I have judged various formats such as Congress, PF, LD, BQ, DI, HI, DUO, OO, IMP, DEC, etc...

I am a traditional Lincoln Douglas judge.

I am a lay judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Refrain from using jargon. I enjoy lively, spirited debate when participants support their arguments with evidence and persuasive claims. Make sure to weigh your arguments carefully. Tell me why your impacts are more important than those of your opponents. 

I am a parent judge, so please no jargon or speed

I value debaters who are persuasive and are polite during round and can use logic and reasoning to argue their point.

Please do not be rude to your opponents, being civil is the difference between a debate and just yelling

My daughter mentioned that I would be a lay and truth over tech, I'm not 100% sure what that means but it might help

Please add me to the email chain or doc (preferably email or word, I am not very familiar with google docs) : tfan001@gmail.com

I will try my best to take notes but I will not always be able to keep up, so try to stay slow during round and focus on a few key points towards the end so you're easier to follow

Happy debating!

Hi! I’m Sophie, I’m a student at Penn, and this is my second time judging a high school tournament. I’m from Philly and have experience in the local after school league, plus some experience in the national circuit (the most relevant of which is making it to octos (bid) at Villiger three years ago).

sophiegala32@gmail.com

A few things to note about my debate background/practices

• Standard tech > truth pf judging outlook- what matters is the evidence and reasoning presented in round, not what is more broadly considered reasonable or what I think

• I flow, but I'll prioritize what you say in round in terms of which arguments interact with each other + which are the most important

• I’m familiar with common debate terms and concepts: frontlining, warranting, links, uniqueness, etc. I’m all good if you use those terms in-round, but please don’t overuse them, as they represent concepts that it could sometimes strengthen your speech to just explain

• I don’t know much about more niche/advanced jargon or about the norms and procedures for using theory in-round. I see the theoretical value of critically evaluating + shaping the debate setting, but I can’t really make judgements on how well a given team is doing that because of my limited background in that area. Similarly, I’m not sure of the practices for anything too far outside of the norm, like joke cases, performance debate, etc.

Some other general comments:

• Please be mindful of interrupting each other and respectful when questioning interpretations of evidence + understandings of opposing arguments

• I'm a fan of roadmaps, signposting, and weighing (all pretty common I guess)

• Please don’t purposely misread your evidence :( I may call for cards if they're important for the round or if a given interpretation is challenged in-round

• I know debate speech is generally pretty fast and I can keep up with it, just please don’t spread

Previous coach, tab director (be on time!), and judge of long ago. Never debated. I can flow arguments made at slightly above conversational pace and appreciate when winning arguments are made clear enough that I don't have to think too hard.

• Don't time torch the round - there are guidelines in the Live Doc about prep time deduction if your evidence takes an excessive amount of time to find. You should be able to find your cards within ten to fifteen seconds in our digital age. Use hyperlinks to your advantage!
• There are also specifications about no prep during evidence finding since, if it's as fast as it should be, that time isn't deducted from prep.

Theory: Debate is a game that should be equitable, educational, and played respectfully. I'll listen to arguments that impact to the shortfalls of the debate space in any of those domains.

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

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

Coaches: Tim Scheffler, Ben Morris

(Former) PF Partner: Sorin Caldararu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. No sticky defense.

- I don't flow author names.

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

JV/Novice/Middle School Paradigm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Congress:

Short and sweet:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

BQ:

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

What I Prefer to See in a Debate:

1. Please use sources/references for all facts that you are bringing up. This includes percentages, numbers, stats, and any ideas of other authors that you are paraphrasing. This is really, really important to me. I will not believe you if you don't have your facts backed up.

2. Don't eyeroll your opponent or speak in a matter that's rude, i.e., that they don't know what they're talking about. They may have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about, and you should call them out on it, but just don't be rude, dude. This is also insanely important to me.

3. Please don't go too fast. I can follow arguments faster than parents but not super, super fast.

4. Don't give me hypotheticals and try not to use just theory to support your points. Real solutions/real things get across to me much better.

5. I'll only call for cards if you and your opponent are saying opposite things about the same exact thing.

6. You can respond to any rebuttals in any of the time periods allocated for rebuttals. I see a debate as a whole thing, so the entirety of what is said is up for game in rebuttals.

7. Please do not run a topical case. Please speak to the resolution.

Parent judge with 4 years of experience, I do flow the entire round.

If possible, please make it easy for me, collapse or go for a very well explained turn.

I am not a a pro and wont necessarily understand all the jargon and nuance.

My prefs:

1. yes - signpost; off-time roadmaps, extending from SUM to FF;

2. warrants > blips = I will have a hard time voting for poorly explained arguments;

3. no - spreading, anything new in 2nd SUM or FF;

4. Happy to skip grand-X if you are...

5. If K and Theory is read, I will do my best, but no promises that I will do a good job of it.. so swim at your own risk.

you can add me to email chains and case - viettagrinberg@gmail.com

In sum, first-year out who will vote off the flow. Please weigh.

I debated for four years for Horace Mann (class of 2019) and attended TOC in my upperclassman years.

While I will act as a tech judge, I also value some truth in arguments—the more far-fetched your argument seems, the more likely I am to buy simple, logical responses. However, I do vote off the flow as much as possible, so in the second half of the round, please fully extend all arguments you expect me to include when deciding.

Please weigh—otherwise, you'll be unhappy with my decision. Please also interact with your opponents' weighing if they provide any.

Technical things: I discourage but can handle speed, prefer fleshed out logic over blippy card dumps, don't require defense in first summary unless second rebuttal has frontlined (which is also optional), and have minimal to nonexistent experience with all types of progressive arguments (but am open to voting off substantive theory shells for actual in-round abuse).

I have no knowledge about the current topics as I do not coach; please do not assume I know anything about stock arguments or topic-related acronyms.

Small things: Set up before me and do the flip if you are able; no need for handshakes; I think speaker points are very arbitrary and try to inflate them a little (shh).

Last of all, please let me do if there is anything I can do to make your life easier—debate is about learning and having fun fun at the same time, and I believe everyone in the round should work towards making that happen.

For further reference, please check out this paradigm written by my teammates Sajan Mehrotra and Ethan Kim: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fw2VpOyJbxFPYGz2jseTGfbbZiUgIRQJqh5LvCgbahw/edit?usp=sharing

Debate History: I debated for Towson University & Binghamton University (4 years college).

First and foremost, I will not tell you how to engage in the debate. Whether it be policy or K affirmatives I'm open to debaters showcasing their research in any format they choose. However, I do prefer if debaters orient their affirmative construction towards the resolution. 

When evaluating a debate I tend to weigh the impacts of the affirmative to any disadvantage or impact the negative goes for in the 2NR. Therefore, if the affirmative does not extend case in the 2AR it becomes more difficult for me to evaluate the debate unless you tell me the specific argument I should be voting on otherwise. 

Next, is framework. I evaluate this before anything else in the debate. If you run framework in front of me go for decision making, policy research good, learning about X (insert topic related policy discussion i.e. warming, tech, economy, education, etc.) is good, clash or ground. I do not want to feel as though your framework is exclusionary to alternative debate formats but instead debate about its inherent benefits. 

I also really enjoy case debate. If you are on the negative please have case turns and case specific evidence so that the debate for me is a bit more specific and engaging. 

CP's and DA's are also arguments I evaluate but I need to have a good link for both or it will make it difficult for me to vote for them. 

Please focus more on explanation of evidence and not on the amount of evidence introduced in the debate. 

I tend to keep up on politics and critical literature so don't be afraid of running an argument in front of me. I will always ask for preferred pronouns and do not tolerate racism, white supremacy, anti-blackness, sexism, patriarchy, transphobia and xenophobia. 

I am interested in detail-oriented, logical-based debates. Your ability to speak/flow well also is something I factor into scoring. Feel free to point out logical fallacies in opponents' arguments.

Pronounce my name:

I'm writing this for my father.

He hasn't ever judged pf before (LAY). My dad has a good understanding on basic economics and politics, which is helpful for this topic.

He may flow, but his flow will be relatively simple

Important aspects that he values in a debate round:

• Don't speak too fast and be clear
• Be respectful to one another
• Avoid using debater language (de-link, weigh, etc.)
• Strength of link is more important than impact weigh
• Don't run any progressive (theories and Ks)
• Do not miscut/misconstrue cards

I have been judging speech and PF in both Novice and Varsity in tabroom and local tournaments in past few years.

Here are a few important aspects of speech and debate that are crucial in my mind:

1. Respect to your opponents
2. Speak slowly and clearly (I will stop taking notes if you talk too fast)
3. Avoid Debater Language
4. Do not speak over one another
5. I will give you a few seconds of leeway, but don't abuse it
6. Know your audience

Thanks

-Sandy Hou

4 years of PF, UVA '23

Winning my ballot starts with weighing, in fact, weighing is so important I'd prefer if you did it at the begiNning of every speech after first rebuttal. Be cOmparative, I need a reason why I should look to your arguments firsT. Please collapse, don't go for more than one case arg in the second half, its unnecessaRy. I'm a lazy judge the easIest plaCe to vote is where I'll sign my ballot. I'm not going to do more worK than I need to. I will not vote off of one sentence offense, everything needS to be explained clearly, warranted, and weighed for me to evaluate it(turns especially). I try not to presume but if I do, I will presume whoever lost the coin flip.

I will evaluate progressive arguments.

If you are going to give a content warning please do it correctly - this means anonymized content warnings with ample time to respond.

I'm very generous with speaks, speaking style doesn't affect how I evaluate the round and I don't think I'm in a place to objectively evaluate the way you speak. With that being said I will not tolerate rudeness or ANY bm in round. I can handle a decent amount of speed but do not let speed trade off with quality.

Online debate I will be muted the entire round just assume I'm ready before every speech and time yourselves and your own prep. I will disclose if the tournament allows.

Questions: chashuang1@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Evelyn Huang (Louis D. Brandeis (TX), '22) and I competed in extemp, congress, and worlds throughout high school.

Debate: I'm flexible as a judge but I don't follow spreading and dislike progressive debate trends. I expect you to keep your own time and to keep your competitors accountable. Treat me like a well-informed lay judge. Don't twist or cherrypick sources to mislead a room, be respectful to your opponent(s), and make sure your lines of reasoning make logical/common sense.

Extemp: I hate canned intros and awkwardly forced humor as AGDs and transitions. I prioritize thoughtful analysis and nuanced approaches, not bad/problematic jokes to "break the tension." As long as your sources are credible and you have well-backed perspectives on an issue, you will do well in extemp rounds 99% of the time. In order of how I rank, 1. accuracy/logical sense, 2. presence/presentation, 3. uniqueness 4. structure. I don't expect you to come up with a revolutionary answer to a complex political/IR issue, so just present to me a fair representation of the topic and you'll do well. Prioritize intention in your speeches--what does that source specifically contribute to the argument? why specifically did you order your points in that order? how does your opinion outweigh the (probably) dozens of experts who have written about their contradicting opinions to yours, or what shortcomings/blind spots have they not considered?

Hi! I debated for 3 years on the circuit for Churchill (MD) and am now a sophomore at Penn.

tl;dr

I haven't seen a PF round in 2+ years and am not updated on the norms/trends, so you should probably treat me as a flay judge.

Here are some key points:

• Please be clear, signpost, and warrant well
• Collapse and weigh comparatively in the second half
• I'm probably worse at flowing than the average flow judge, so don't go too fast or you'll lose me
• Don't extend through ink
• Be nice
• I'm really not a fan of theory/Ks and don't understand them at all, so I'd strongly prefer if you stick to substance and will probably be biased against you if you run it for no reason. Like below, if there's a real violation, just explain it plainly

Feel free to read the rest of my old paradigm if you want, but the above points are the most relevant. If you do all of that I'll try to be generous with speaks. Let me know if you have any questions before round, and have fun!

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

I'd consider myself a normal flow judge, so just debate how you like.

General

- I like well-warranted and well-explained arguments. It makes it easier for me to understand and thus vote on.

- Please weigh your arguments comparatively! If you don't weigh (or its not comparative), I will have to do my own weighing, which might not turn out how you like.

- Tech > Truth, but the more ridiculous the argument the lower the threshold I have for acceptable responses to it.

- Collapse pls

- If you want me to vote on it, you should be extending it, not just saying "extend X, extend Y"

Speed

- I kinda suck at flowing, so try not to go tooooo fast. Generally, I can keep up, as long as you remain clear. If I think you're going too fast, I'll say "clear".

In Round

- Don't make new arguments in final focus.

- You should extend arguments that you want me to vote on in summary and final focus.

- Signpost

- I think it's strategic if second rebuttal frontlines responses in first rebuttal (but it's not necessary if you aren't comfortable with it)

- First summary doesn't have to extend defense (unless its frontlined in second rebuttal), but if it's important you should still extend it in summary

- "They don't provide a warrant/the impact isn't contextualized" is a sufficient response for me.

Evidence

- I think paraphrasing is okay, as long as you have a card to back it up.

- I won't call for evidence unless I think it's important to the outcome of the round or unless I am explicitly told to.

Progressive Arguments (K, Theory, etc.)

- I don't think progressive arguments are good for the direction of the PF, and I would discourage you from running one in front of me. With that being said, if you choose to read a progressive argument,

1. You should explain it very well

2. I never had much experience with it in high school, so I will probably make a decision that reflects my lack of knowledge

- If you think there is a real violation in round, I think you should just explain and warrant it like any other argument (paragraph theory), and I will be inclined to vote on it.

Finally,

don't be rude, sexist, abelist, racist, etc.

Good luck and have fun!

I have coached LD and PF for about 15 years now, but I am not a professional debater. I am a flow judge, and I prefer classic debate with clear clash, not jargon-laden spreaders with theory and K shells. I value clash and technical debate, but I will not vote for a blatantly false argument even if it is dropped.

Clear your impacts. I am OK with some speed, but you must be clear. At least slow down through authors and taglines. In the end, if I can't understand you, you will lose.

Extend, don't drop. I will consider dropped arguments to be conceded. Even if the other turn drops a turn, you should extend your warrant. Tell me what was conceded and why it matters.

Weigh your argument. The last two speeches should be about weighing and crystallization, not new arguments or a rehash of old ones. Tell me how to weigh your round, because if I choose the weighing mechanism, you might not win.

Don't make me work. If you tell me, I'll flow it, unless it goes by too fast. The more you link, the less I have to think. I will make reasonable assumptions and discount abusive arguments even if you don't call them out explicitly, but the more work I have to do, the less predictable the outcome will be for you.

Evidence clash is mostly neutral. I don't judge Policy. Trying to outweigh on evidence is not going to go very far for me. In most cases, if you toss just cards at each other, I will call that a wash.

I feel the need to fix this huge communication issue in the debate community it will start with my judging philosophy. If you are a debater who say any of the following "Obama is president solves for racism" or "we are moving towards less racism cause of Obama or LBS" and the opposing team reading a racism arg/advantage or colorblindness I will instantly vote you down with 25 points for the debater who said it.

Jumping: Novice please don't but if you must which you all will you have 20 seconds after you call for prep to be stop till I consider it stealing prep and instead of restarting prep I will just measure it by the ticker timer in my head (which you do not want). I suggest that you carry a debate jump drive, viewing computer or the cloud system. For Open debaters I get even more angry with the lack of competence you guys have with being responsible when it comes to jumping files and card. I have a soft warmness for debaters who are mostly paper and may involve me smiling like a boy with a crush don't be alarmed it is just me remembering my old days.

Speaking: I believe that clarity comes before all other ideals of what we often fantasize a good speaker to be, a debater has to be clear so that I spend more time analyzing and processing what is said then trying to comprehend what the hell is being said. This helps in the rebuttals when there is more cross applying of arguments instead of me sitting there trying to ponder what argument reference is being made. Speed is something I can adjust to not my general forte yet if you are clear I can primarily make easier adjustments (look I sound like a damn metronome). I tend to give hints towards the wrongs and rights in the round so I won’t be put off if you stare at me every now and then. Debates should be a game of wit and word that upholds morals of dignity and respect do not be rude and or abrasive please respect me, the other team, your partner and of course yourself

The Flow: My hand writing is atrocious just incredibly horrible for others at least I generally flow tags, authors and major warrants in the world of traditional debate. Outside of that with all the other formats poetry, performance, rap, theatricals and so forth I just try to grasp the majority of the speech incorporating the main idea

The K: yeah I so love the K being from a UDL background and having running the K for a majority of my debate career, yet don't let that be the reason you run the K I believe that a great K debate consist of a in-depth link explanation as well as control of the clash. There should be Impact calculus that does more then tell me what the impact is but a justification for how it functionally shapes the round which draws me to have a complete understanding of the Alt versus the plan and there must be some idea of a solvency mechanism so that the k is just simply not a linear disad forcing me to rethink or reform in the status quo (K= reshape the Squo)

The T debate: First I find it extremely hard to remember in my entire debate career where I cast a ballot for topicality alone yet it is possible to get a T ballot you must have a clear abuse story I will not evaluate T if there is not a clear abuse story. Voters are my best friend and will become a prior if well explained and impacted, yet I do believe education and fairness have extreme value just want to know why.

The D/A: Well I actually find myself voting more on the Disad then the K I just think that the disad debate offers more tools for the neg then the K yet it is the debater who optimize these tools that gain my ballot, link debates should contain at least a specific link as well as a an established Brink generic links are not good enough to win a D/A ballot and any good aff team will destroy a a generic link unless there is some support through a link wall. Impact debates must be more than just nuke war kills all you have to place comparative value to the status quo now and after plan passage. Yet a disad is an easier win with the advantages of solvency deficits and the option of competitive counter plans.

The Counter Plan: Competition is key if there is no proof that the end result is not uniquely different from the aff plan it is less likely to capture my ballot. So C/P solvency and competition is where my voter lies on the C/P flow this involves establishing and controlling the clash on the net benefit. PIC's usually rely on proving that the theoretical value of competition is worth my jurisdiction.

Theory: cross apply T only thing with a theory debate that is different is you must be able to show in where the violation actually happens yet I find theory to be easy outs to traditional clash.

Framework: this is where my jurisdiction truly falls and it is the teams’ job to not only introduce the functioning framework but to uphold and defend that their framework is worth singing my ballot towards. I have no set idea of a framework coming into the round your job is to sell me to one and by any means my job is not to look at what framework sounds good but which is presented in a manner that avoids judges intervention (really just the team that prevents me from doing the bulk of the work if any).

In general: I love a good old debate round with tons of clash and where there is an understanding and display of your own intellect I find it hard to judge a round where there is just a display of how well a team can read and make reference to evidence, usually I hope that ends or is done less coming out of the 1AR. I'm a man who finds pleasure in the arts and execution of organic intellect and can better give my decision and opinion based mainly on how one relates back to competitive debate, if debate for you is a card game then it forces me to have to make decision based off my comprehension of the evidence and trust me that is never a good thing, yet a round where the discussion is what guides my ballot I can vote on who upholds the best discursive actions.

Email: strikeranjan@gmail.com

I debated in Public Forum at Nova high school for 4 years

I hate theory and K's with a passion.

Not a huge fan of speed, especially if you're just reading off a document

Having an authors name behind an argument doesn't mean anything to me. Make sure the warrants connect.

I will vote off of logic over an unwarranted probably not credible author.

MUST WEIGH STARTING IN SUMMARY OR I WILL DROP YOU

Weighing is the most effective way to win the round.

I don't flow cross

I am a parent/lay judge. I appreciate clarity over speed, as well as respectful disagreement. I expect you to synthesize and apply your research, not simply provide citations.

I am a flow parent/lay judge who prefers clarity over speed.

Please avoid spreading so that I do not miss an argument or response.

I appreciate respectful disagreement and appreciate when you are being directly comparative with your opponent's arguments to demonstrate how you are winning the round.

Keep the impacts realistic. It will be easier to vote for you if the case seems both practical and plausible.

I expect the debaters to present evidence in their arguments and will only look at it if there is a conflict.

I am not particularly supportive of theory arguments and would prefer you stick to the topic at hand.

Although an experienced PF judge, I am also an LD judge.

Debated. Did okay. Don't care about debate anymore.

Speech docs would be helpful and can be emailed to ekemelmakher@gwmail.gwu.edu

IMPORTANT: Read the pet peeves section of my paradigm at the very least. I get really annoyed when you do all of the pet peeves in a round. For every infraction that I notice, -0.5 off speaks. If you plan on disappointing, strike me.

PLEASE BRING ME FOOD. If you do I’ll give you 30s!

Debate is a game so have fun

- Truth over tech, please for the love of all that is holy have warranting

- If something happens in cross, please bring it up in the next speech.

- Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh Weigh it's how I decide the round pls weigh. Totally new Weighing in the first FF is okay, but it's better if done earlier

- Make your weighing comparative, don't just use buzzwords like "we outweigh on scope" — that means nothing to me; there should be comparison and actual warranting for why I should prefer your arguments to your opponents

- No new arguments in FF. This applies to extensions. If there isn't a clean link and impact extension in the summary, I won't evaluate it even if it is in FF.

- Please collapse and extend case properly in summary and final focus. This means extending the uniqueness, link, and impact. I probably can't grant you any offense if you don't do this.

-Theory: Don't read it, I'll drop you. If there is actual abuse that needs to be covered, you don't need a theory shell.

Speaks

- Signpost, otherwise I'll be hella confused as to where you are on the flow

- Speak pretty, and be strategic and you'll get high speaks

- Moderate speed is ok, but if you start spreading I will drop your speaks

- This goes without saying but teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc will receive a 25L

Evidence

Evidence is overrated, I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, warranted analytics beats unwarranted carded stats every single time.

Pet Peeves

- Saying "My time starts on my first word". No really? I thought it started on your fourth word.

- Saying "We're gonna take some running prep." As opposed to walking prep? Where's the prep going? Just take prep, and tell me how much you took after.

- Giving a really long off-time roadmap, and then not even sticking to it. PF rounds are often pretty linear, you can just tell me what side of the flow you're starting on

Fun Stuff

If you do a 360 jump and call it a massive 180 when you read a turn: +0.5 speaks

The Office jokes in speeches: +0.5 speaks

Don't be boring

Paradigm:

As a judge, I prefer for debates to stay on resolution / topic, does that mean I am more traditional, yes. The formats were formed for a reason and that should be followed. If you get too progressive, well please see what I initially started myparadigmwith.

As for speed, can flow very well, however if it sounds like you are choking and cannot breathe, well you just dropped those contentions, cards, points, whatever you were trying to establish. In most things, quality outweighs quantity, like do you attend three, four, five colleges at once, no, no you do not that, you pick the one of highest quality and focus on that, so in that vein, remember, this is not policy, but either PF or LD and looking for quality during the rounds.

Please respect each other and have a great debate.

kurtisjlee@gmail.com

Put me on the link chain

Send all cards before the speech, stop killing time in the round on asking for individual cards please.

3 Years Highschool PFD Debate

3 Years College Policy Debate

(Policy)

1. I'm fine with speed. Obviously if you're forcing it and sound off and you dont see me flowing then you need to slow down (which you and your partner should be observing anyway).

2. You will benefit greatly by slowing down on tag lines and reading plans, and flipping between flows.

(PFD + Policy)

I'm really big on the technical side of debate. That means clearly outlining and discussing the:

1. Impact Calculus

-Timeframe
-Magnitude
-Probability
-How your impacts relate to your opponent's impacts
-How these impacts actually happen, the full story behind them, paint a picture. ELI5

2. Links

-They do X so they link, is not a link.

-I weight links pretty heavily in arguments so I prefer when debates spend time to contextualize the links within the story of the debate

3. Uniqueness

-Usually not an issue but i've been surprised before, often gets assumed

4. Internal Link

-Im very skeptical of you just arriving at extinction. I mainly ran policy arguments so I know how ridiculously easy it is to just fit in 16 extinction scenarios in your constructed speech but I need to see that internal link debate fleshed out.

5. Open to any kritiks/performance but the above bullets apply even more so. I do not like when teams brush over the technical side of debate just because they arent running nuclear war. Arguments are still arguments and logic is still logic.

6. Framework - I lean towards debate being a game. That being said, there are obviously millions of ways to debate within that framework.

Anything else just ask.

Kurtis Lee

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.

Hi All,

I am a CFA. But I have minimal experience in judging, so consider me a lay judge.

A couple of things to look out for:

1- Don't spread. Go super slow. Be clear. Explain well. I flow pretty slow and will not vote off of arguments that I don't understand.

2- Minimize the use of fancy vocabulary or debate jargon. This will help me follow along better.

3- Don't be rude or aggressive. It is hard to understand when people are speaking over each other.

4-Avoid racism, sexism, ableism, or any form of discrimination. If this happens, I will most likely drop you.

Overall, have fun and enjoy yourselves!

Debated pf on nat circuit for 2 years at Peddie

lay judge

debate however you feel most comfortable, I'll adapt to you

say kobe is the goat for good speaks

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Yes, include me on the email chain. zhaneclloyd@gmail.com

Brooklyn Tech: 2011 - 2012 (those three novice UDL tournaments apparently count), 2017 - 2021 (coach)
NYU: 2014 - 2018
The New School: 2018-2020 (coach)

***I used to keep my video off for rounds, but I've since learned that it's a mistake for the morale of the debater as well as for confirming whether or not I'm actually in the room. If my camera is off, I am not in the room. Please do not start speaking***

I currently work a full-time job that has nothing to do with debate. I still judge because that full-time job does not pay enough (does any job nowadays?) and I've built community with people that are still very active in debate, so seeing them is nice. It is also means I'm VERY out of touch with what the new norms in debate are. But everything below still applies for the most part.

In case you're pressed for time

1. Do you. Have fun. Don't drop an important argument.

2. If there is an impact in the 2NR/2AR, there's a high chance you've won the debate in front of me. I like going for the easy way out and impacts give me the opportunity to do that. Impact comparisons are good too. NEG - LINKS to those impacts matter. AFF - how you SOLVE those impacts matter. Outside of that context, I'm not sure how I should evaluate.

3. I flow on paper, so please don't be upset if I miss arguments because you're slurring your words or making 17 arguments/minute.

4. Don't assume I know the acronyms or theories you're talking about, even if I do. This is a persuasion activity, so no shortcuts to persuading me.

5. Obviously, I have biases, but I try not to let those biases influence how I decide a round. Usually, if debaters can't accomplish #2, then I'll be forced to. I prefer to go with the flow though.

6. If at the end of the round, you find yourself wanting to ask my opinion on an argument that you thought was a round winner, know that I have one of two answers: I didn't consider it or I didn't hear it. Usually, it's the latter. So try not to make 5 arguments in 20 seconds.

7. There's no such thing as a "good" time to run 5+ off, but I'll especially be annoyed if it's the first or last round of the day. 10+ off guarantees I will not flow and may even stop the round. I'm not the judge for those type of rounds.

8. I've grown increasingly annoyed with non-Black debaters making "helping Black people" as part of their solvency. A lot of you don't know how to do this without either a). sounding patronizing as hell or b). forgetting that "helping Black people" was part of your solvency by the time rebuttals come around (#BackburnerDA). I'm not going to tell you to stop running those arguments, but I strongly recommend you don't have me in the back of the room for them.

**ONLINE DEBATE**: You don't need to yell into your mic. I can hear you fine. In fact, yelling into your mic might make it harder for me to hear you. Which means you may lose. Which is bad. For you.

If you're not so pressed for time

I debated for four years at NYU and ran mostly soft left affs. I think that means I'm a pretty good judge for these types of affs and it also means I'm probably able to tell if there is a genuine want for a discussion about structural violence impacts and the government's ability to solve them or if they're just tacked on because K debaters are scary and it makes the perm easier.

I do think debate is a game, but I also think people should be allowed to modify the "rules" of the game if they're harmful or just straight up unlikeable. I've designed games from time to time, so I like thinking about the implications of declaring debate to be "just" a game or "more than" a game. Now to the important stuff.

Speed: Through a card, I'll tolerate it. Through a tag or analytics, I'll be pretty annoyed. And so will you, because I'll probably miss something important that could cost you the round. When reading a new card, either verbally indicate it ("and" or "next") or change your tone to reflect it.

Planless affs: Even in a game, some people just don't want to defend the government. And that's perfectly okay. But I would like the aff to be relevant to the current topic. Though I do understand that my definition of "relevant" and a K debater's definition of "relevant" may differ greatly slightly, so just prove to me why the aff is a good idea and why the lack of government action is not as relevant/bad/important as the negative's framework makes it seem.

CP: Wasn't really much of a CP debater and I don't really coach teams that run CPs, except the basic novice ones that come in a starter kit. I think they're a fine argument and am willing to vote on them.

DA: You could never go wrong with a good DA. DAs, when run correctly, have a really good, linear story that can be extended in the neg block and could be used to effectively handle aff answers. Feel free to go crazy.

Ks: I can't think of a neg round where I didn't run a K. I've run cap, security, queerness, and Black feminism. But please, do not talk to me as if I know your K. If you're running pomo, I most definitely don't know your K and will need to be talked through it with analogies and examples. If you're running an identity K, I probably do know your K but expect the same from you as I expect from a pomo debater. Cap, security - you get the memo.

T: My favorite neg arg as a senior. I'm always down for a good T debate. I do think that sometimes it's used as a cop-out, but I also think that some affs aren't forwarding any sort of plan or advocacy. Just stating an FYI and a neg can't really argue against that. So T becomes the winning strategy.

Framework: Not exactly the same as T, but I still **like** it. Please just call it framework in front of me. I've heard various names be used to describe it, but they're all just arguments about what should be discussed in the round and how the aff fails to do so.

Theory: Important, but the way debaters speed through their theory shells makes me question just how important it is. Again, slow down when reading theory in front of me so it's actually an option for you at the end of the round.

I am a flay judge with a little over 10 years experience judging and coaching. I didn't do debate in high school or college, but I have really enjoyed it on the judging side, and I have learned a great deal. Having said that:

1. I prefer arguments to technicalities. Debates about debate are not great.

2. If you are participating in an evidence-based event, do give evidence, and be clear and specific when you cite it.

3. Clash with the opposing arguments; more often than not I end up deciding which arguments I PREFER, rather than which ones I believe.

4. Signpost as you go. It helps me keep my flow organized.

5. Keep your impacts at the forefront.

6. Give me voters and weigh.

7. Ask questions during CX, and engage with your opponents, don't just give more speeches.

Good luck, and have fun.

-have clear warrants and impacts

-clear, understandable speaking style

-be engaged and persuasive

General Bio:

I'm Laura (she/her) I am a college senior majoring in Anthropology and Political Science at Haverford. I've competed in Parliamentary style debate for a little over 6 years and I have done some tournament judging for the past 3 years. I have also worked part-time as a high school parliamentary debate coach.

PF or Parli:

Signpost, signpost, signpost. Otherwise I'll have no way to clearly flow the round.

I tend to dislike speed or spreading, its not something I've encountered in my debate league and I'm unfamiliar with it. If it is absolutely necessary, make sure you are clear and have a good roadmap.

I want to see in every contention a claim, warrant, and impact that is clearly signposted or otherwise stated in layman's terms. If I don't see this I will consider the case to be relatively weak.

If you are using theory or high theory in a round you should fully understand it and be able to explain it. I would also caution against that as I am not overly familiar with it and probably won't fully understand it.

I try to be tabula rasa but I do have my own biases, I'm a liberal arts college student so just take that in mind. I will generally privilege the human/social argument over realpolitik, etc. but that's not to say that I haven't debated like that or have never advanced debaters that do so.

Policy:

(some preferences for PF apply so keep that in mind)

Please explain all your acronyms and try not to speed too much, I won't understand it and I am unfamiliar with the jargon.

I am comfortable and happy with K debates.

I'm okay with Critical Aff, K, etc. however these all need to be explained very clearly to me. I'm a political theory major so I have read most common theorists and generally have a good grasp of them. I have some knowledge of common Ks, but I will need debaters help with clarifying these. I also generally prefer Ks that are less broad sweeping and a little on topic.

Counterplans are fine by me.

I love CX so be sure to use this time effectively, I won't flow the whole thing but it will make an impression on my decision.

Have clear impacts that are brought up throughout the round, don't forget points in the debate and don't be too in love with jargon.

I don't really want to be on any email chains unless you feel strongly about it. I'm just going to be flowing what I hear.

DON'T ( PF, Policy, Parli)

I don't want to hear racist, sexist, ableist, etc comments in my room. I don't care how knowledgeable you are in a round, you will automatically be dropped and reported.

I don't want to hear any extreme "devil's advocate" arguments that could cause offense to anyone in the room, don't make assumptions about anyone's identities or background. Remember that the topic we're debating could personally affect some of the people in the room on different levels, be empathetic.

(I will flow based on arguments rather than debaters unless instructed otherwise, call people in if you feel uncomfortable)

Generally try not to be too rude, although we've all been a little snarky in a debate I'd like to keep things civil and fun.

Please don't be super performative or emotional (?). This is just a personal preference but I'm not sure what to do with tears, etc. if they're not genuine they just feel odd. If you do genuinely feel upset and need to take a break please tell me.

DO's ( PF, Policy, Parli)

Use trigger warnings ahead of the round if you are running a case which you think could be particularly sensitive for folks.

Disclose your Ks to opponents ahead of a round (this is my strong preference as a judge, it's okay if you choose not to but know that if you don't I will consider arguments re accessibility and non-disclosure).

Be funny! I love when debaters regularly tell jokes in a round or make things light hearted and fun (where it is appropriate of course).

Please always remember to be empathetic of your competitors. I want to see cordial introductions and goodbyes at the end of the round, no rushing off!

I am currently an M&T sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania, but I did PFD on the national circuit for four years at Ravenwood High School. While I do understand the tech jargon, please clearly explain all responses and speak at a comprehendible pace (basically no spreading please). Also, please come pre-flowed to the round, so we don't waste time.

It is up to the debaters to keep track of their speech time and prep. I flow my own rounds during speeches but not crossfire. Any points of contention brought up in cross must be addressed in speeches.

Please extend and collapse in summary so that all voters are in summary. Frontlining should be done in second rebuttal and first summary. Please weigh arguments and extend any potential weighing through final focus. All responses should be warranted.

Please don't run theory/K's in the round with me. I'd much rather see a clash of ideas/evidence in the topic.

Please stand for your speeches and crossfire (except grand). Sitting is weird imo.

As always, please be respectful of each other and have fun.

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions at mitrariy@wharton.upenn.edu.

I am a parent judge.

Preferences: No spreading and do not use debate jargon or fully explain it. Make sure you self time and keep track of your prep. Signpost and be respectful. Have fun!

I am a lay judge though I have a doctorate. For email chains: lamaga0@yahoo.com

Lay out arguments clearly and explain acronyms used the first time.

Offtime roadmaps are appreciated, same with signposting.

Feel free to talk quicker than for most parent judges, but do not spread.

If rules of round are broken (eg: bringing up a new point in final focus), please explain why the argument does not count.

**Updated October 31, 2023

Hello everyone!

My judging history will show that I’ve primarily tabbed at tournaments since the pandemic started. However, I’ve been keeping up with topic discussions across LD, PF, and Policy and am looking forward to judging you all!

I’ve been in the debate world for over a decade now, and have been coaching with Lexington since 2016. Starting this academic year, I also teach Varsity LD and Novice PF at LHS. I was trained in policy debate but have also judged mainly policy and LD since 2016. I also judge PF at some tournaments along with practice debates on every topic.

TLDR: I want you to debate what you’re best at unless it’s offensive or exclusionary. I try to have very limited intervention and rely on framing and weighing in the round to frame my ballot. Telling me how to vote and keeping my flow clean is the fastest way to my ballot. Please have fun and be kind to one another.

Email: debatejn@gmail.com

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES

In an online world, you should reduce your speed to about 75%-80%. It’s difficult for me to say clear in a way that doesn’t totally disrupt your speech and throw you off, so focusing on clarity and efficiency are especially important.

I usually use two monitors, with my flow on the second monitor, so when I’m looking to the side, I’m looking at the flow or my ballot.

MORE IN DEPTH GENERAL NOTES

If your argument isn’t on my flow, I can’t evaluate it. Keeping my flow clean, repeating important points, and being clear can decide the round. I flow by ear and have your speech doc primarily for author names, so make sure your tags/arguments/analytics are clear. I default to tech over truth and debate being a competitive and educational activity. That being said, how I evaluate a debate is up for debate. The threshold for answering arguments without warrants is low, and I don’t find blippy arguments to be particularly persuasive.

LD PARADIGM

In general: Please also look at my policy paradigm for argument specific information! I take my flow seriously but am really not a fan of blippy arguments. I’m fine with speed and theoretical debates. I am not the best judge for affs with tricks. I don’t like when theory is spread through and need it to be well-articulated and impacted. I have a decent philosophy background, but please assume that I do not know and err on over-explaining your lit.

On Framework: In LD, I default to framework as a lens to evaluate impacts in the round. However, I am willing to (and will) evaluate framework as the only impact to the round. Framework debates tend to get really messy, so I ask that you try to go top-down when possible. Please try to collapse arguments when you can and get as much clash on the flow as possible.

A note on fairness as a voter: I am willing to vote on fairness, but I tend to think of fairness as more of an internal link to an impact.

On T: I default to competing interpretations. If you’re going for T, please make sure that you’re weighing your standards against your opponent’s. In evaluating debates, I default to T before theory.

On Theory: I lean towards granting 1AR theory for abusive strats. However, I am not a fan of frivolous theory and would prefer clash on substantive areas of the debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On RVIs: I think RVIs have morphed into a way of saying "I'm fair but having to prove that I'm being fair means that I should win", which I don't particularly enjoy. If you’re going for an RVI, make sure it’s convincing and reasonable. Further, please make sure that if you’re going for an RVI that you spend sufficient time on it.

On Ks: I think that the NR is a difficult speech - answering the first indicts on a K and then having to collapse and go for the K is tricky. Please make sure that you're using your time effectively - what is the world of the alt and why is my ballot key to resolving the impacts that you outline?

PF PARADIGM

In general: I rely on my flow to decide the round. Keeping my flow clean is the best path to my ballot, so please make sure that your speeches are organized and weigh your arguments against your opponents.

On Paraphrasing: I would also prefer that you do not paraphrase evidence. However, if you must, please slow down on your analytical blocks so that I can effectively flow your arguments - if you read 25 words straight that you want on my flow, I can't type quickly enough to do that, even when I'm a pretty fast typer in general. Please also make sure that you take care to not misrepresent your evidence.

General Comments On LD/Policy Arguments: While I will evaluate the round based on my flow, I want PF to be PF. Please do not feel that you need to adapt to my LD/Policy background when I’m in the back of the room.

On PF Theory: It's a thing, now. I don't particularly love it, but I do judge based off of my flow, so I will vote on it. However, I really, really, really dislike frivolous theory (feel free to look at my LD and Policy paradigms on this subject), so please make sure that if you're reading theory in a round, you are making it relevant to the debate at hand.

POLICY PARADIGM

On Framework: ROBs and ROJs should be extended and explained within the context of the round. Interpretations and framing how I need to evaluate the round are the easiest path to my ballot. Please weigh your standards against your opponent’s and tell me why your model of debate works best. While I will vote on fairness as a voter, I tend to default to it as an internal link to another impact, i.e. education.

One off FW: These rounds tend to get messy. Please slow down for the analytics. The best path to my ballot is creating fewer, well-articulated arguments that directly clash with your opponent’s.

On Theory and T: Make sure you make it a priority if you want me to vote on it. If you’re going for T, it should be the majority of your 2NR. Please have clearly articulated standards and voters. I typically default to competing interpretations, so make sure you clearly articulate why your interpretation is best for debate. In general, I do not feel that I can adjudicate something that happened outside of the round.

On DA/CP: Explain why your evidence outweighs their evidence and please use impact calc.

On K-Affs: Make sure you’re weighing the impacts of your aff against tech stuff the neg articulates. Coming from the 1AC, I need a clear articulation of your solvency mechanism and the role of ballot / judge.

Hitting K-Affs on neg: PLEASE give me clash on the aff flow

On Ks: Make sure that you’re winning framing for these arguments. I really enjoy well-articulated link walls and think that they can take you far. I’m maybe not the best judge for high theory debates, but I have some experience with most authors you will read in most cases and should be able to hold my own if it’s well articulated. I need to understand the world of the alt, how it outweighs case impacts, and what the ballot resolves.

One off Ks: These rounds tend to get very nuanced, especially if it’s a K v K debate. Please have me put framework on another flow and go line by line.

I am a new judge, but have some understanding of Public Forum.

Please speak at a conversational pace, so that I can understand you.

Please be respectful and polite amongst each other and your opponents.

* Keep track of your own prep time.

Have fun!

I debated public forum for 6 years from middle school to the end of HS at BC Academy.

Please read this paradigm carefully before so that we don't have delays. Assume that I will always be ready.

Zoom Specific:

My campus's wifi is not very nice, I do advise you to disclose your case to me at roseoh1004@gmail.com before the round actually starts if you are planning to spread. Ddd me to the email chains while you're at it!

can handle up to 200 words per minute cuz you never know when my wifi will crash <3 , please send me your speech docs if you are planning to spread over my limit

I don't care if your camera is off or not if your wifi is also like mine but turning it on is recommended to replicate the in-person debate experience to the largest extent

Please try to wear headphones so that no one echos in the debate round -- my personal pet peeve!

General:

My debate terminology is a little rusty. Progressive strategies might throw me off but I will try to understand and follow them to the best of my abilities.

I'm tech>truth, so make sure to call out sus cards in front of me (I will call for cards if this is notably important at the end of the round - this is why i suggest teams to send me their cases)

If you're saying something problematic/homophobic/anything along those matters, I automatically give you a 20 on speaker points

If you're rude and not professional, I deduct 1 speaker point every second you keep up the attitude until it reaches 20

If it takes you more than 5 minutes to get the card, you don't have the card (actually Yale requires me to be patient a little, so I'll just deduct prep time until u run out lol)

Preferably time yourselves, but don't abuse this - I'd rather focus on the flow/content

I will keep track of prep though, seen too many debaters tryna pull a fast one on me

Much as I like double drop theory for the entertainment factor, do not run this as the ballot doesn't allow me to do so

I consider defence sticky in the 1st summary

2nd rebuttal should frontline offence

extend in SS to be considered in FF I will not extend for you

impact weighing is a must for me in FF, weighing in summary is not required --> if you don't weigh, don't expect to win the round

please do the work for me. I do not like to build bridges or connect messy points together to flesh out what happened in the round nor like to artificially make clashes for debaters

MOST IMPORTANTLY HAVE FUN!!!! DEBATE IS NOT THE END NOR THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD

I am a Public Forum untrained judge with a degree in philosophy, I enjoy listening and flowing debates but am also still new to judging. Please speak clearly and try not to simply speed-read; make it clear to me what your arguments are and really explain them by using specific data that backs up your case. Try to stay in the moment and address one another's points with reason and clarity. Make it clear why your opponents arguments are less impactful- do they lack supporting evidence, the moral imperative or are poorly reasoned? Finally, weigh the round in your concluding statements and emphasize to me your central arguments in straightforward terms. Why should your team win the round? Good luck! I look forward to hearing your arguments!

I am a new judge, but I am experienced in the format of debate and the development of argumentation. Make every argument clear and tell me why it is important!Why should I vote for you?

Articulate clearly. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. Big words don't impress unless they have meaning beyond trying to sound intellectual.

Eye contact is a must. Your conviction must show in your confidence which must come from the solidity of your argument.

Convince me (both in argument and responsive crossfire). I may have an opinion about the topic walking in. You don't know what that opinion is, so argue like you are trying going to change my mind. This is how I will judge the debate; not on oratorical prowess (though that will certainly be awarded in speaker points). Be responsive in Crossfire. Don't ignore the questions posed to you; do respond thoughtfully and with specificity. Ask strong, engaging questions that call specific arguments into question.

Most of all, have fun. Debate is a growth mindset, so let's grow together. ✌

Please speak at a reasonable speed, not too fast to make comprehension difficult. Also, have cut cards ready when opponents ask for them. Please use a respectful tone in speech and body language.

Did PF for 6 years. Competed for Evergreen Valley

email: ppalleti@wharton.upenn.edu

General Preferences:

Tech>Truth

Read any argument you like.

Read metaweighing when both sides give me different weighing mechanisms

Speed is fine.

Please share speech docs as a standard.

I will default negative for policy rounds, and the first speaking team for fact rounds

I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good.

Crossfire should be about asking questions, DO NOT try to assert yourself over your opponent to try and impress me

Please ask me questions at the end of the round, I sometimes do not give enough detail in my oral RFDs

General Values (Please Read):

“Tech debate” shouldn't be about dumping responses to overwhelm an opponent. Substantiate a quality arguement with a strong line of reasoning than a 7 second claim from some author. On that note, I really hate it when debaters make new analysis or warranting for such arguments in later speeches.

I value the use of statistics and research.

I agree with the notion that debate should be played like a game. I enjoy judging rounds where debaters use "unique paths" to the ballot, but not all of them are educational nor executed well.

I am a lay judge. I judged at UPenn last year. Limit use of debate jargon and speak slowly and clearly. Make sure you extend your arguments into summary and have comprehensive weighing. Please do not spread, as I am unable to flow VERY fast speaking. I should be able to flow a warrant-link-impact for each contention. I vote on extended arguments through summary and FF, and good comparative weighing. I don't have experience in debate, but do my best to remove all personal biases on the topic. Please don't run Ks or Theory, as I can't evaluate them. Good luck!

My name is Ms. Reyes, I work at Bronx Science and I am first-time traditional judge. Please speak slowly and clearly and do not run any progressive arguments. I appreciate it when debaters are kind to each other. Have a good round!

Liz Scott She/Her liztoddscott@gmail.com

Experienced debate parent judge, I suppose best characterized as a "fl-ay judge", however strength of argument, knowledge of your sources, defense of contentions, and rebuttal of opposing contentions will win over whether you dropped a contention in summary.

I generally have no issue with speed, but more isn’t always better. I often favor a team that makes it easy for the judges to decide by collapsing on their strongest point(s) rather than extending all contentions through Final Focus, be bold! Tell me why how have defended your best argument and refuted your opponents’.

Preference for polite engagement, please be nice. Zero tolerance for anything blatantly offensive or rude, yelling is not convincing.

I have now officially judged 1 kritik round but I have observed and am supportive of progressive debate.

I will call for cards and review evidence only if it is contested by your opponent.

If you are going to use catastrophic magnitude weighing such as nuclear annihilation or total climate destruction your link needs to be very strong. In fact, just stop using extinction arguments, I'm sick of weighing extinction against structural violence (for example).

All prep is running prep, IE, I will start my timer when you say you have started and stop it when you stop regardless of if you tell me you are “taking 30 seconds”.

Please remember that most judges are volunteers and listen to the same material all day, often crossfire is the most interesting part of the debate for the judges so don’t discount the round, it can definitely have a large impact on subsequent rounds and the momentum of the debate, however I don’t flow through crossfire so if an important rebuttal or turn comes up in cross, make sure you raise it in second speak and/or rebuttal/FF.

Hi! My name is Jae, currently a Junior here at Penn studying business analytics. You can treat me as a lay judge as I do not have a formal debate background.

Do not treat me like a 4th grader.

Please be nice, do not post round, and best of luck!

Hello! I debated for Princeton High School on the national circuit.

I never really liked super long paradigms so I’ll try to keep it brief.

Add me to your email chains cwshen@wharton.upenn.edu 

General Preferences

- Tech > truth but I think the best debaters are ones who build a narrative while still winning the flow. That means things like unwarranted responses or blippy extensions will make it much harder for me to vote for you.

- Please weigh! This is also more than just throwing out buzzwords like “scope” or “magnitude” – you should actually resolve the weighing debate.

- Collapse on 1-2 pieces of offense in the back half of the round. It makes the debate much more engaging and much easier to evaluate!

- Speed: I’m pretty good with speed but a speech doc is always appreciated. Please don’t spread on me.

- When extending arguments/evidence, you need to tell me what the argument/evidence says. Don’t just say “extend Peters ’19”. Tell me what Peters said.

- Signpost for my sanity

Progressive Stuff (Ks, theory, tricks, etc.)

** for NSD camp: debate substance, you're here to learn about the topic and I'll be very hesitant to vote on any prog

I’m familiar with progressive arguments but given that I’m an East Coast debater who literally only does PF, don’t be surprised if I'm not totally down with voting on your shoe theory. In most cases, I won't vote for it, but if you genuinely believe there is a real abuse and you impact it convincingly and in an accessible manner, you can give it a try.

Important Stuff: Above all, be nice! Any racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will result in an L and the lowest amount of speaks I can give you. Competing in tournaments is hard and it’s always worse when you leave a round with a headache. Have fun!

Debate is a subjective activity, so I try to make it as objective as possible by evaluating rounds as follow:

1) I buy any argument at all as long as it has strong warrants and links.

2) Everything I'm weighing in final focus MUST be in summary. If you want it to be evaluated at the end, its got to be there.

3) Use summaries to respond to the responses to your case.

4) Please, for the love of all that is holy, weigh arguments. Specifically what I mean by that is tell me why one argument matters more than your opponents. If your opponent is winning 3 arguments and you're only winning one but you tell me why that's the most important one, you will win the round. (This is by far the easiest way to my ballot)

5) If you extend the argument/warrant I will extend the card for you where it comes up, you don't need to say "extend johnson" so long as you extend johnson's argument.

6) Also, if you make me laugh I bump your speaks.

7) Please make this debate fun for me. Have energy. Have a firey crossfire. Use sass.

8) Don't steal prep!!! If you're asking for a card, I won't run prep so long as you aren't actually prepping.

9) I don't flow cross, if it's important I expect it to make it into speech

10) I competed on the National Circuit in PF from 2009-13. I then coached from 2014-17. I've been out of the debate realm since. Take that information as you will.

I was a competitive PF debater all throughout high school and am currently a junior at the University of Pennsylvania.

Things I want to See:

-Please tell me where you are on the flow (sign posting). Nothing is worse than when kids are spewing and you don't know where to write it

-WEIGHING! Believe it or not, both teams will be winning some sort of offense at the end of the round. The only way you can convince me to vote for you is to tell me why your offense is more important than you opponent's offense.

-clash!!

-The best debates are ones where both teams have a central narrative that they are extending and expanding on throughout the round. While you can win by merely extending one turn that was dropped, I will be a lot happier voting for a team that has a strong narrative and story that convinces me not only on paper (flow), but also perceptually and emotionally (I know that is cheesy, but it's true)

Things I don't want to see:

-If you spread, I will not flow. The easiest way to ensure that I'm flowing is to look at me while you are speaking. If I am flowing, then your speed is fine. If not, then you are going waaaay too fast and need to slow down.

-You should be able to pull up all of your evidence within 30 seconds max. If not, I will get really annoyed and ask you why it is taking so long.

-Cross Fires are a chance to ask strategic questions that help set up your partner for their next speech or help to drive and frame the narrative that you are going for. However, if you use this time to just yell over your opponents, I will be annoyed and drop your speaker points.

-While I debated with summaries being two minutes long, I still expect your summaries to have the same purpose: to summarize the debate. A summary is not where you extend every piece of offense and spread in order to do so. It should be a structured speech that defends one of your important arguments and extends offense on your opponents arguments. If you go all over the flow trying to cover everything, you will certainly not get 30 speaker points from me and my flow will look messy which will be harder for me to make a decision at the end of the round.

Speaker Points:

Speak well, make concise and compelling arguments, use rhetoric that will convince me to vote for me and you are well on your way to a 29 or 30.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, don't hesitate to ask me before round. Also, if my RFD didn't make sense, please find me after round and ask so that I can explain myself better. Sometimes I just rush through so that the tournament can run smoothly.

Debated PF for four years in high school. Currently a sophomore at Penn studying Econ and Health and Society.

• I am fine with speed, but don't encourage, quality > quantity
• No spreading, I will not flow anything
• Be respectful and friendly please

• Please use sources/references for all facts that you are bringing up. This includes percentages, numbers, stats, and any ideas of other authors that you are paraphrasing.

• Please weigh. Please also interact with your opponents' weighing if they provide any.

• I have no knowledge about the current topics as I do not coach; please do not assume I know anything about stock arguments or topic-related acronyms.
• Sign post

Good luck :)

I debated on the national circuit for Lambert back in the day (you should look me up to boost my ego) and am currently a student at Upenn.

Don't be rude or a bad person.

He/Him

put me on the email chain, please.

georgetian80@gmail.com

General

I strongly believe in Tech>Truth, but that does not mean doing sloppy debates with way too much on the flow. By the end of my flow I want a concise and clear way to vote.

I will probably have no idea what the topic is about, so please make everything easy to understand.

Everything extended must have a warrant.

Please clash and resolve said clash. I want to intervene as little as possible. Also, please weigh it'll make voting a lot easier.

I'm okay with speed but send a speech doc. (I have not debated for a while, I may be rusty so a speech doc will help no matter what)

DEFENSE IS NOT STICKY IE if you don't extend a piece of defense even if your opponents don't frontline it I will not take it into account. You must extend everything you want me to write down. This is a hill I will die on.

Speech Specifics

Second rebuttal should frontline.

No new weighing in final focus unless it's responsive.

you should probably respond to frameworks in the speech directly after even if it's just for a few seconds.

Please time cross on your own. I don't really pay attention to cross either so use it as an opportunity to gain information not win the round.

Prog

I'm ok with theory (very rusty) especially, disclosure, open-source, paraphrasing, and some friv theory.

Theory must be in shell format

Please weigh in theory debates.

I have little experience with K lit but I will vote off of it if you warrant it well and explain everything. I am by no means experienced with kritiks and not be the best judge to read them with.

trix ^same as K

Since most of my debate career was online, I'm still super used to email chains as evidence sharing, and I think this should be a norm even in in-person debates.

Hi! Super excited to be judging your round today, I have judging experience and would love it if you spoke slowly, made your points clear throughout the round, and acted courteously toward one another. Make sure you respond to your opponent's arguments clearly and concisely and use evidence throughout the round.

If you have any questions about how I judge, feel free to ask me before the round start. Excited to hear everyone’s arguments and good luck!

Email: mercywah28@gmail.com

Hi, my name is Mercy, and I am a junior in college. I debated for six years, so I understand how debate operates and debate lingo. I have been judging for 3 years now, and my favorite arguments to vote on are critiques and identity politics. I mostly ran black arguments in high school pertaining to black women, and I understand the difficulties of debating your identity. So if you are a black woman who centers black women, I will give you a 30.

I will flow tricky arguments, confusing frameworks, and frivolous theory arguments, but if not explained thoroughly, I will not vote on it.

I lean more towards truth over tech, but I understand the importance of being technical in debate. If impacted out correctly, I will evaluate tech first.

I am very familiar with LD and policy, I did not do PF in high school but- however, I can still clearly judge, follow and understand a public forum round. Don't be afraid to break a norm in a public forum if I am judging you- like reading a critique.

Lastly, don't say anything that actively makes the space exclusive for people. In other words, do not be anti-black and all of the other phobics- homophobic, xenophobic, fatphobic etc.

Have fun and respect one another. I also never have paper or a pen so please bring extra.

I am a parent judge who prefers truth > tech.

What impresses me the most in a round is the participant's ability to identify gaps in their opponents logic and provide counter-arguments or compare your arguments with theirs.

hi im jessica. i debated in pf for 4 years at newton south, and im a sophomore at upenn. this is my first time judging debate in ~2 years. i don't coach and have no knowledge of the current topic, so treat me like a flay (leaning tech) judge.

speed: i can handle speed, but my comprehension goes down when your speed goes up. also remember that i dont know anything about the topic so it's probably in ur best interest to go a bit slower

cross: if something important happens during cross (eg: a concession), make sure you bring it up in the following speech

second rebuttal: turns must be responded to by second rebuttal, i don't care what you do with defense. with that said, i think front lining is extremely strategic for the second speaking team

second half of round: please collapse, frontline, and weigh. any extension that you make should have a link/internal link/impact. i won't vote off of arguments that are missing any part of the extension.

progressive args: I am really not a fan of these arguments unless the abuse is something outside of the scope of debate rules. I dislike debaters who use theory, etc to confuse opponents/avoid debating topic at hand. if you choose to run progressive args, you must go **slow** and **warrant** everything as I am EXTREMELY unfamiliar with this type of argumentation. if i do not understand your argument, i will not vote off of it.

ways to win my heart and get higher speaks be nice in cross, don't have a loud timer, don't be anal about your opponent's prep time, use a trigger warning if running sensitive arguments, make jokes :)

my priority is to make debate and the round a safe space for you. if there's anything i can do to accommodate, please let me know at jessicalily176@gmail.com. sexism, homophobia, transphobia, racism, etc will NOT be tolerated.

Email: yiwen.wu76@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will not understand or evaluate progressive arguments. 

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

I debated LD/PF for Niskayuna High School (graduated in 2020) on the National Circuit and now I debate for Penn. If you're sending docs/evidence, my email is byao@wharton.upenn.edu. If you have questions, feel free to email me or ask before round.

A lot of my paradigm is ripped from debaters I personally admire, so if it seems familiar that's why.

tl;dr please weigh everything, prioritize robust link chains over blippy args, be sure to mechanize your args (i.e., how they actually create change), and be nice to your opponent!

*FOR PF*

Hi PFers! I have a soft spot for PF as it was the style that I preferred to do in HS. Overall, the goal for you should be to write my ballot for me. I don't do any work for debaters and judge cleanly from what's on the flow. I'll vote on most things (barring openly offensive arguments) as long as they are cleanly articulated, weighed, and flowed in all of your speeches.

General:

• If you plan on reading past any reasonable speed, send speech docs before your speeches; if you paraphrase, include all the cards at the bottom of the doc.
• The best final speeches have a clear narrative arc/story of your impact scenario with many kinds of weighing. Remember that good weighing isn't just about terminal impacts, but also about internal links/warrants in the round.
• The key for convincing warrants is showing where the brink is for your impacts to happen and why your evidence pushes it across the line. Identify the brightline.
• Signpost, or else I will definitely flow something on the wrong doc.
• Be as explicit as possible with things like weighing.
• I won't vote for arguments that I don't understand or arguments that are clearly unwarranted. I believe I have a somewhat high threshold for what counts as a warrant—one sentence cards usually aren't enough.
• Argument quality matters the most to me, not delivery.
• If you believe your opponent is using bad evidence, they probably are. Just point it out briefly in your speech (e.g., miscutting, misquoting, etc.) and I'll call for the full card at the end of the debate to confirm.

Theory/ks:

• I'll vote on these as long as they're properly executed. I'm not the biggest fan of seeing these in PF since then I have to judge the round like an LD round, but if you insist, I will flow it.

*FOR LD*

Generally, I vote by my flow.

I’ll vote on anything as long as it's warranted and with clear weighing throughout. I'll take a moment here to say that weighing doesn't mean mentioning a weighing mechanism and moving on. It means zero-ing in on the actors that create change in the round, how key decisions are made, and which evidence is more likely to move the needle in your favor and why the needle moving in your direction is better for the world than opp. Comparing worlds is an effective strategy here.

• Don't be late.
• I personally strongly dislike judge intervention so please don't make me have to intervene. I'll only have to do so if you don't give any weighing to go off or debate in a vacuum from your opponent. Crystallizing the clash is key.
• Don't abuse prep time. Drinks of water are fine, but I'll call you on anything excessive and drop speaks accordingly.
• Extensions are pretty much the best way for me to know what arguments you're trying to go for and where you're focusing clash for the round. It's not enough to say "extend arg 1" or "extend the aff." Please mention the specific warrant that you're extending. You don't have to re-hash the argument tagline, but you do have to hash out how it clashes with opp.
• If you don't explain an argument clearly, I won't vote on it. If you're spreading and don't flash beforehand, I will say clear twice before I stop flowing.
• I'll time you, but you should also be timing yourselves.

Theory

• Don't read friv theory. I have a pretty high threshold for warranting here.
• If you do choose to run theory, make sure the implication and interp are clear. If you're facing theory and your opponent doesn't give an implication, it's enough to point that out and I won't vote on it. However, if you don't vote on it and context clues point to drop the debater, I'll vote on it.

Framework

• Should be well-warranted; not really a big fan of blippy preclusion frameworks
• I've seen too many debaters completely ignore framework clash. Please weigh as framework is one of the most important things to win the debate

Ks

• I am familiar with some K literature, but err on the side that I know nothing.
• My default judging for Ks is the same as any argument where I put a premium on clear weighing, implications, and how the K interacts w/ your opponent's args

Speaks

Things that will get you high speaks include high argument quality, innovative arguments, good crystallizations, etc.. Overall, it's demonstrating a clear ability to prioritize which of your arguments matter in relevance to the core clash of the debate. As long as you spend a good bit of time fleshing out solid arguments, get gritty about how they weigh against your opponent, and weighing impacts at the end, you'll get high speaks.

Things that will get you low speaks is offensive args, tech-ing out debaters clearly worse than you (i.e., friv theory, a priori tricks, etc.), generic dumps, straight up lying, etc.. You'll know if you're getting low speaks.