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.

General note for both speech and debate: how you behave in a round matters. I expect you to be cordial and collegial to your opponents. If you are not, your speaker points and/or ranking will reflect it.

Racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc. comments and/or arguments and/or behavior are not tolerated. You WILL lose the round and/or receive 0 speaker points. Don't do it. And that includes coded language. If you use stereotypes of identities (particularly race, gender, disabilities, and/or ethnicities) that aren’t yours, especially for comedic effect, you will be ranked last.

A little about me: I was a policy debater in high school (20+ years ago). I currently run Lakeside Debate and Public Speaking School, where I am the head coach. For four years, I was the Congressional debate coach for Lakeville North and Lakeville South High Schools. For two years, I also taught Congress and PF for Potomac Debate Academy. I was the Head Coach at Wayzata High School for two years where I coached policy. I also coach speech (all categories), most recently at Edina High School. I've literally coached and judged it all. I also have a PhD in social ethics.

Here’s the TL;DR version:
Clash is the minimum expectation in debate rounds. Make sure that the speech you give fits where you give it (i.e., extemping a rebuttal on the third cycle vs. reading a prepared speech in the third cycle for Congress). I love Ks and critical argumentation (but know your theory!). Give me the ballot in every speech after the constructive! And don’t conflate ethics and morals! See below for more detailed information for events.


CONGRESS

Each speech should have proper argumentation (claim, warrant, impact(s)). IMPACT OUT YOUR EVIDENCE!!! You should know why the evidence you’re reading or the statistic you’re citing matters and you should communicate that! Road map your speeches. Signpost during them. If you are not the first speaker on either side of a bill, make it clear that you're following what's come before you. Acknowledge your fellow representatives when you're building on their point or when you're refuting it. CLASH IS EVERYTHING!

I expect crystallizations and rebuttals to include weighing/impact calc. I rank POs unless the round is chaotic/incredibly poorly run. Precedency and recency matter. I track the number of questions you ask in addition to scoring your speeches. The person who gets my top rank is the person who performed best in the round, factoring in questions, speeches, and in-round behavior. I'm looking for cordiality and collegiality, strength and uniqueness of arguments, fully impacted out arguments, and excellent in-round engagement with the thoughts and arguments of others. Generally, I care more about the content of your speech than your delivery, unless the delivery makes it impossible for your arguments to land.

LD/POLICY/PF DEBATE
In a round, I'm paying close attention to whether arguments are complete and if they're well supported by the cards used. It's not just about cramming as much as will fit into an X-minute speech; it's about making sure that your evidence says what you're saying it does and using information to make your argument stronger. I'm looking for claims, warrants, and impacts. I will vote on impacts, so make sure you extend them. ***Trigger warnings are not enough; you need to have a non-explicit case that you can run.***

I'm not a strict flow judge, but I am tracking all the arguments. If questions are raised in rounds that are a priori(need to be addressed prior to addressing the resolution), I'm paying special attention to how they're run and responded to; T and K are voters that, for me, always take precedence over case. RFDs will not be tech heavy.

Clash is important! Rounds where the sides talk past each other and don’t engage with the arguments of the other side are not good rounds

Tell me why you should get the ballot in all post-constructive speeches. Make your case for why you win the round. But please do not tell me that I have an ethical obligation to vote a certain way, unless you're giving me the ethical paradigm from which you want me to vote. Otherwise, the phrase "you have an ethical obligation to vote for us" means nothing. Ethics and morals are not the same thing, so please don't conflate them. Morals are an appeal to shared values, while an ethic is simply a way of being in the world. Knowing how to make these arguments successfully will make you better debaters.

While I am an old school policy debater, my doctoral studies were continental philosophy, critical theory, cultural theory, and social ethics. Bring on your critical arguments! I love critical argumentation in both LD and Policy when it's done well. I welcome it in PF, too. I expect students to understand the theory that underlies their critical arguments, as that is the only way to successfully defend arguments of that kind. My decisions in many rounds come down to a priori questions to the resolution, especially Ks.

Speed, in and of itself, is not a problem; speed without clarity is. If I can't understand you, I will say “Clear” once. Slow down and enunciate. If I still cannot understand you, it's an issue that will impact speaker points. Please slow on your tags and citations.

This is the single best advice I can give you if I am your judge: do not conflate ethics and morals. An ethic is a way of being in the world; it does not require morals. Morals, conversely, are principles by which one lives one’s life. While many ethics include morals as part of their structure, ethics and morals aren’t the same thing. If you’re making a moral appeal argument, you need to tell me what the morals to which you’re appealing are and why they’re important. If you’re making an ethical argument, you need to tell me what the ethical framework is that I should use. Otherwise, telling me that I have an ethical or moral obligation to vote in a particular way means nothing; you need to give me the framework or the values you want me to use to evaluate the round. When you don’t, it means that I am using my own ethical or moral framework to evaluate rounds and, because no two people have the exact same ethic (way of being in the world), it lowers the persuasiveness of your argument.

PF-Specific Preferences:
Evidence ethics matter!!! DO NOT PARAPHRASE IN FRONT OF ME. Read the actual card. It doesn't take any longer to read the card than it does to paraphrase it. There are no excuses for not reading the actual card. If you take longer than a minute to provide a card that's called, I will strike it from the flow. If the card is called and you were paraphrasing it, I reserve the right to drop you, especially if there are any discrepancies between what you said and what the source says. Critical arguments are always welcome, but make sure you can prove a violation if you’re running T or a norms violation (disclosure, trigger warning, spreading, etc).

SPEECH
I’ve coached every NSDA category and regularly judge them. There are a couple big things that I’m looking for when I judge a speech round.

1) Performance: Can I hear you? Do your movements make sense? Are you comfortable with the material? Do you wait for the judge before beginning? Does entire performance fit with the material? How well do you perform or present your piece? Are you off book? Do you speak with confidence and authority?

2) Category specific things: For interp generally, I pay close attention to transitions, pops, and character work. Are they clean? Are they distinct physically and vocally? Getting those to a point where they’re clean is a huge hurdle, but one that matters.

In humor, do the jokes land? Are they told well? Does the performance include pauses after jokes that elicit a laugh? Do you know what your laugh lines are? Is the piece funny? Are you relying on racial/ethnic, gender, or other stereotypes for comedic effect? (If you do, you'll rank last!)

TRAUMA FOR THE SAKE OF DRAMA IS NOT OKAY! There is no reason for the details of an assault to be included in a piece or portrayed during a performance. Trigger warnings must be delivered properly; if I am your judge and your piece needs a trigger warning, please communicate that to me prior to the start of the round. I will take care of alerting the room and allowing time and space for people to take care of themselves. Do NOT turn the trigger warning into a performative action that does not allow time and space for people to take care of themselves.

In POI, I’m looking for a cohesive piece that has a clear narrative arc throughout it. Do the piece selections fit with each other? Is each piece identifiable? In other words, can I tell when you’re popping between pieces? Does the theme carry through? Have the cuttings been done well?

In Info, OO, and other student-written categories, does the text make sense? How well written is the piece? Does it succeed in being interesting and engaging? In an OO round, is the speech persuasive or is it dramatic? Does the solutions fit the problem? And in an Info round, is it an informative speech or is it persuasive? I want persuasion in OO and informative in Info.

For extemp, I want to see both an understanding of the prompt and an understanding of the arguments advanced. Are arguments complete (claim, warrant, impact) or are they missing a piece? Does the argument have ground? Is the question closely tied to the arguments made by the student? Impact out your evidence!

3) Category requirements: do the piece and its performance adhere to the NSDA rules or the operative rules for a tournament? If you’re not sure what they are, you can find that information on the NSDA website or the tournament website (NSDA rules are used widely, so start there).

4) Respect and collegiality: do you treat everyone with respect? Are you on your phone or engaged in watching your peers? Put simply: don’t be a jerk. No one likes a jerk. If you’re disrespectful in a round, it will impact your ranking.

Make my ranking decisions hard for me! The best rounds are the ones where I have a hard time figuring out how to rank you.

_________________________________

Hi! I'm Ausha

I competed in Policy 2017-2019 and LD 2019-2021 in Washington State, running stock and critical args in both. I finished top 50 at NSDA Nats in 2021 and was the WA state LD champion.

Put me on the email chain if you make one : ausha.L.curry@gmail.com

tldr -- Run whatever you want to run. I'll listen. I'll vote where you tell me to, that's your job in the rebuttals.

Don't do/say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamphobic, etc. It'll 100% result in an L20. If at any time during the debate you feel unsafe, feel free to email me and i'll end the round and deal with it accordingly

Prefs

Policy/LARP - 1

Basic Ks - 1

T - 1

Uncommon Ks - 2

Phil - 3/4

Other Theory - 3/4

Tricks - strike

General -

1. online - go maybe 80-90% max speed and definitely start a little bit slower in case the audio is shady. also plz locally record your speeches in case either of our internet cuts out !

2. disclosure - I won't vote on disclosure unless the violation is super egregious. i was literally the only circuit debater at my HS and i couldn't afford programs like debate drills, etc. so if you're in a similar boat i will def be empathetic towards you in these rounds. On the flip side if you're from a school that has a massive team and try to run the small school arg i won't buy it

3. tech > truth - please be super clear about signposting especially online. even if your opponent straight out concedes something, I still need extensions of a warrant and some weighing for me to vote on it

4. speed - speed is good, slow down on plan/cp texts, interps, etc. I'll yell clear or just ask for the doc post speech if I feel like I missed anything too significant (if it wasn't sent already). If your 1ar is entirely analytics please either slow down or send them in the doc

5. Ev ethics - if u suspect ur opponent is clipping cards, let me know after their most recent speech. it'll also require some sort of recording for proof. Yes stake the round on it, or you can run a theory violation on it and it'll be nicer for everyone

Argument Specific -

tricks - strike me. i won't go for any of the "neg doesn't get CPs" or "eval the debate after x speech". i think they're genuinely cheating, a bad model of debate, and incredibly exclusionary and i will die on that hill

t/theory - I love t, please run it. I spent a lot of my time in policy going for t in the 2nr so I'd say this is where I'm pretty comfy judging debates. I have a pretty high threshold for other theory, especially super friv theory like font size

LD specific: I didn't run a ton of grammatical stuff like Nebel in LD but if you run it well and explain the violation clearly, it's a pretty good shot I'll vote for it. i've come to the realization i don't particularly love theory 2ars if it's only introduced in the 1ar. I think it's made for some pretty shallow debates, but again, i will vote on it unhappily

Defaults: Competing interps, DTA, condo good, PICs good, yes RVIs (note: this doesn't mean i won't flip, you'll just have to debate it)

trad (LD) - will get through these rounds unhappily, but please spice it up a little bit. Make me not want to rip my ears off. Explain phil well, i've never ran one of these cases but i've won against them if that means anything to you. please do comparative work otherwise i will have no idea how to weigh. (Post GFC outrounds, please do not go top speed for kant I NEED you to slow down and explain how everything interacts with each other)

CPs - please make them competitive and have some sort of solvency evidence unless it's some a structural issue (ie taking an offensive word out of the plan text and replacing it). i use sufficiency framing for weighing the cp against the aff meaning you'll have to do more analysis than just "cp doesn't link to the net benefit" in the final rebuttal for me to vote on it. I think both internal and external net benefits are good.

DAs - I enjoy unique, nuanced das. I really like politics and i'll buy them pretty easily if there's a good link to the aff. Should have an overview in the final rebuttal and the block shouldn't be just reading new ev and not answering line by line.

ks - go for it! I like them if they're ran well but make sure you know that your own lit. I'm most familiar with generics (setcol, cap, security), Foucault, a little Edelman, and Baudrillard, any other high theory ones you should explain more though. open to pomo but never really ran it during high school and only hit it a couple times.

k affs - I like these, i ran more than a few. They don't have to be topical, but I think it's easier to win on t if they're in the direction of the topic. I mostly end up going for k v k against these affs but i also run fw in the 1nc, see the t section above if you have questions about that. tvas can be deadly so please blow it up if T/FW is your nr strat!

performance - never ran this, but always enjoyed watching these rounds. Tell me why the 1ac is important in the debate space and win T and it'll be a super easy aff ballot. negs be careful and please don't say anything offensive <3 but i feel like a different K or pik is always a better bet than fw against these

Speaks -

I think i tend to give relatively high speaks averaging between a 28-29. Things that'll boost your speaks: nice pics of aubrey plaza at the top of the speech doc, good organization, clear weighing, and strategic decisions

+.5 for flashing analytics

Some background on myself - My experience in debate historically has been with congressional debate. However, I have coached PF before and have familiarity with the structure and find it to be a particularly exciting style of debate to watch and judge!

PUBLIC FORUM

There is no value in a debate where I cannot understand either debater.

Please speak so that the average listener can understand you. That does not mean you have to speak slowly. You just need to be clear. Slowing down to emphasize clear points/sub-points is always a good idea throughout your speech. 

I flow. I attempt to be non-interventionist. I will likely only call a card if the interpretation of that card is at significant dispute during the round. I advise debaters to read their cards carefully - many times, a debate can be lost because a team inaccurately cites evidence that is crucial to their argument. Including the year and source for evidence is necessary for me to accept them as credible.  

Having a framework is always helpful. By the end of the constructive speeches, I do not want to hear any new arguments raised. Impacts need to logically flow from the warrants. Do not exaggerate them. 

It is important to try and rebut all arguments, but prioritize the most crucial ones. A weak argument that is dropped is less likely to be a convincing voting issue than a strong argument that went dropped. However, do not spend too much time on a single argument if your opponent mentioned multiple other ones. Also, try to extend your arguments and do some basic weighing here as well, but do not do so at the expense of rebuttal.

As the debate progresses, it crucial that you weigh and summarize the main voting issues, or reasons that I should vote for or against a particular side. In the summary speech, convince me why you won or your opponent lost the round. If an argument is not weighed by either side, I will not consider it. The summary speech is not for new arguments.

A final focus should not include any argument not referenced in the summary speech. I do not flow the final focus - I just listen. Normally, that speech can make or break a close round.

In crossfire, I listen and you can persuade me. However, crossfire is not flowed, so you need to incorporate any findings from crossfire into your speeches for me to consider it. It is more likely that you can exploit flaws in an opponent's argument during crossfire than it is likely for you to advance your own argument. That is true for your opponent as well. Therefore, it would likely be unnecessary to incorporate entirely new cards into your cross questions/responses. Do not interrupt one another or engage in a screaming match. Again, there is no value in a debate where I cannot understand either debater.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE

I have developed a rubric that clearly outlines my paradigm for judging Congressional Debate. Granted, not all speeches or rounds can be categorized the same. Consider this paradigm, therefore, a general, albeit not perfect, guide for how I approach Congressional Debate rounds when judging:

Speakers will be considerably penalized for speaking on less bills than they should given the allotted time of the session. Usually sessions allow for two speeches. Depending on size and time this could differ.

If a speaker intended to speak on the bills but was unable to due to poor recency, they will NOT be penalized under this system.

----NOTE: If the chamber comes to a base-x bill agreement, I frown upon those who agree to it before the debate starts, and then proceed to abuse it. This activity was not intended to encourage deceptive legislative tactics. Such an action is not, however, against the formal NSDA rules. Thus, I will hear the speech with no penalty, but may deduct Parliamentary Points for poor legislative practice.

NOTE ABOUT RUBRIC – failure to execute criterion effectively counts as having not done it at all

e.g. – an impact that does not make sense based on the argument provided is as good as a failure to provide an impact

TOC-SPECIFIC NOTE – all morning session speeches on local issues will be treated in my system as authorships.

ORIGINALITY OF THOUGHT

8 –

AUTHORSHIP - the speaker focuses their speech on introducing the Congress to a specific serious problem and its impacts, and explains how their bill effectively solves that problem…the speaker discusses the entire scope of the bill accurately…the speaker introduces arguments so impactful that the negation must refute effectively in order to win the debate

1STNEG - the speaker focuses the speech on how Congress could make a specific problem worse, not solve the problem at all or create other net harms not related to the problems (ideally, this should refer to the authorship speech) … the speaker discusses troubling elements of the bill in a way that is specific and compelling… the speaker introduces arguments so impactful that the affirmation must refute in order to win the debate, as they have muddied the foundation of debate set by the authorship

REFUTATION – the speaker discusses the strongest arguments that came up on the opposing side of debate, correctly mentions all who brought up that argument and effectively refutes them, advancing the debate, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context…the speaker presents strong impacts in extension of their claims

EXTENSION – the speaker expands upon old arguments by presenting new evidence, logic and, most importantly, new impacts that strengthen preexisting claims from speakers on the side of that speaker and accurately frames how the point has been been discussed before by the senators who stated that point (the specific names of senators who used these arguments should be mentioned in the speech) …they should be able to clearly explain how their information made the claim stronger or establish new/stronger impacts about that claim

CRYSTALLIZATION – the speaker weighs the debate, stating the main arguments of the affirmation AND negation and clearly explaining why a particular side won without adding new points…the speaker explains what voting issues the congressional representatives should consider in their vote, and why based on those issues and the information presented in the debate, their side wins…the speaker presents strong impacts in extension of their claims

6 –

AUTHORSHIP – the speaker effectively explains the net benefits of the legislation…the speaker discusses the most important portions of the bill accurately, but alludes to the bill rather than referring to specific sections… the speaker introduces arguments with few strong impacts

1STNEG – the speaker focuses the speech on the bad elements of the bill, but fails to weigh those impacts against those in the authorship effectively…the speaker discusses troubling elements of the bill in a way that is general and accurate… the speaker introduces arguments with few strong impacts

REFUTATION – the speaker discusses some of the strongest arguments that came up on the opposing side of debate, correctly mentions all who brought up that argument and effectively refutes them, advancing the debate, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context...the speaker presents few strong impacts in extension of their claims

(5 – the speaker refutes to one strong argument in the debate and effectively refutes it, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context)

EXTENSION – the speaker expands upon old arguments by presenting new evidence and logic strengthen preexisting claims from speakers on the side of that speaker and accurately frames how the point has been discussed before by the senators who stated that point (the specific names of senators who used these arguments should be mentioned in the speech) … they should have at least few strong impacts, even if they are not completely different but should be explained more effectively/clearly than prior speakers

(5 – all of the criteria above, but lacks strong impacts)

CRYSTALLIZATION – the speaker weighs the debate, stating the main arguments of the affirmation AND negation and explains why a particular side won the debate …the speaker presents few strong impacts in extension of their claims

4 –

AUTHORSHIP – the speaker refers to the net benefits of legislation that acts similarly to the one in question, but does not consider the specific details of the legislation being debated…the speaker talks about the bill generally, rather than what the specific legislation does… the speaker provides no strong impacts

1STNEG – the speaker refers to the net harms of legislation that acts similarly to the one in question, but does not consider the specific details of the legislation being debated…the speaker refers to what bills similar to the one in question do, rather than what it does specifically… the speaker provides no strong impacts

REFUTATION - the speaker discusses some of the arguments that came up on the opposing side of debate, correctly mentions all who brought up that argument and effectively refutes them, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context…the speaker provides no strong impacts

(3 – the speaker refers to the strongest arguments in the debate and attempts to refute them, but fails to do so effectively, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context…a speaker earning this score may give strong refutation points, but fails to successfully and effectively clash with what was said in the room)

EXTENSION – the speaker tries to expand upon old arguments by presenting new evidence and logic strengthen preexisting claims from speakers on the side of that speaker and accurately frames how the point has been discussed before by the senators who stated that point (the specific names of senators who used these arguments should be mentioned in the speech) … no strong impacts are given and the speaker fails to explain how their new information strengthen the debate

(3 – the speaker provides new evidence and logic but it fails to truly enhance the debate, or is only tangentially related to the claims of the speakers being referenced…a speaker may give a strong extension speech…a speaker earning this score may give strong extension points, but fails to successfully and effectively clash with what was said in the room)

CRYSTALLIZATION – the speaker attempts to weigh the debate, and while they may be able to explain compelling net benefits or harms brought up by their side, they fail to effectively

2 –

AUTHORSHIP – the speaker refers to an unclear problem OR the solutions of the speaker weakly works towards solving a problem… the speaker talks about the bill as if they only read the title and seems unaware of the bill’s specifics… none of the speaker’s arguments advance debate

1STNEG – the speaker refers to unclear net harms OR does not sufficiently explain how it makes the problem worse… the speaker talks about the bill as if they only read the title and seems unaware of the bill’s specifics… none of the speaker’s arguments advance debate

REFUTATION - the speaker discusses the weaker arguments or just tries to debate the rhetoric that came up on the opposing side of debate and does so ineffectively, in a way that uniquely adds to the debate either by providing interesting new logic, evidence or context

(1 – rehash of other speakers’ refutation arguments without providing new logic/impacts that change the debate)

EXPANSION – the speaker primarily rehashes old arguments, but there are moments of the speech in which they successfully add some new interesting evidence, logic or impacts to the debate, but not enough to constitute a successful expansion speech…

(1 – the speaker rehashes, rather than expands, old arguments…they add no new information to the debate)

DELIVERY

8 - the speaker demands the attention of the room through using effective eye contact and vocal variation...the speech is clear and delivered with compelling and demanding authority/confidence

6 - the speaker speaks clearly and makes sufficient eye contact with the audience

4 - the speaker makes poor eye contact with the audience but doesn’t look at their pad excessively ...the speaker uses no vocal variety, is purely monotone

2 - the speaker looks at their pad a bit too much...the speaker’s rate of speech at times is difficult to follow...the speaker stumbles so much that it disrupts the flow of their speech at times
1 - the speaker only looks at the pad...the speakers rate of speech is impossible to follow...the speaker stumbles so much that the flow of the speech is nonexistent (if a speaker receives this score, they can never rank in a room - this score reflects an inability on my part to understand the speaker

EVIDENCE AND LOGIC
8 - the speaker uses logic to support their claims that is clear, compelling, well organized and most importantly valid...the reasoning considerably sways the debate to strengthen the side of the speaker...all claims requiring additional support (which is not all but probably most) should have strong well-sourced evidence defending them

6 - the speaker used logic to support their claims that is mostly valid...all claims requiring additional support (which is not all but probably most) should have strong well-sourced evidence defending them

4 - the speaker indirectly connects all claims with prerequisite evidence or strands of logic that support it, even if they fail to connect them clearly...all claims requiring additional support have some evidence defending them, but possibly not enough to really support the claim

2 - the speaker makes considerable logical flaws in defending their claims...the speaker fails to use evidence to defend their claims that require support
1 - the speaker provides no component of logic that adds to the debate in a way that is compelling

ORGANIZATION
8 - the speaker organizes their speech with an interesting intro that introduces the audience to the overarching themes/arguments of their speech, body consisting of usually at least two well-developed arguments (this can be in the form of introducing new arguments, refutations, extensions, or crystallizations -just don’t rest your entire argument on one contention unless you can definitively prove that it’s impacts alone are enough to sway the debate), and a conclusion that cleverly ties into the intro...the transitions are natural, allow the speech to make sense as a cohesive whole and each element of the speech works in combination with each other

6 - he speaker organizes their speech with an interesting intro that introduces the audience to the overarching themes/arguments of their speech and a body consisting of usually at least two well-developed arguments (this can be in the form of introducing new arguments, refutations, extensions, or crystallizations -just don’t rest your entire argument on one contention unless you can definitively prove that it’s impacts alone are enough to sway the debate)...the speaker has clear, albeit boring, transitions between the various aspects of their speech

4 - a body consisting of usually at least two well-developed arguments (this can be in the form of introducing new arguments, refutations, extensions, or crystallizations -just don’t rest your entire argument on one contention unless you can definitively prove that it’s impacts alone are enough to sway the debate)...the speaker has boring and at times unclear transitions between the various aspects of their speech

2 - the speaker presents a speech that is all over the place and difficult to follow...the speaker presents two arguments in their body but the organization of the logic makes it tough to follow their argument...the speaker lacks transitions between the various aspects of their speech causing the speech to lack cohesion

[NOTE – three points will be deducted from this category for speeches that go less than 15 seconds before the speech’s time limit or more than 10 seconds over the time limit…e.g. standard 3:00 speeches should be between 2:45-3:10]

ANSWERING QUESTIONS
4 - the speaker answers questions with clarity and confidence...the speaker stays on message and prevents questioners from deterring them
2 - the speaker answers at least half of their questions with clarity and confidence...the speaker stays on message and prevents questioners from deterring them for at least half of the questions
0 - the speaker answers no questions with clarity and confidence...the questioners successfully point out major holes in the arguments of the speaker

Presiding Officers will be addressed on a similar scale based on different criteria…this ensures they can be ranked as high as any speaker in the room – PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE (the explanation, knowledge and effective execution of parliamentary procedures); RECOGNITION (fair and efficient in recognizing speakers – follows speaker precedence and recency and avoids implicit/explicit bias based on race, gender, school, preexisting relationships, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.); CONTROL (leads in difficult situations, maintains decorum of delegates in chamber, uses good judgment in evaluating motions to ensure chamber efficiency); COMMUNICATION (explains rulings concisely and clearly); DECORUM (maintains a respectful precense in the room – this is only ranked on the scale of 0-4, but, as is the case for speakers, exceptionally bad decorum will result in reduction of Parliamentary Points)

To assess the abilities of competitors of legislators I have a category in my system called Parliamentary Points. These are usually 0-1 points that I either add or detract at a time based on how well legislators participate in the chamber outside of their designated speaking time through solving problems in the chamber, raising motions and asking questions.

Hi, I have judged at national-level tournaments in PF and LD.

All events: be inclusive and KIND :)

I like good slow arguments and prefer speakers give clear instructions and organizations.

I will listen to all argumentations but please be reasonable...

I have taken the Cultural Competency course and other certifications for NSDA.

ASK BEFORE ROUND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

namdhari@umich.edu

Update for TOC 2024:

I haven't debated in a minute but here's my background: Did PF for 1.5 years, switched to LD my senior year and qualified to the TOC. Since college, I haven't actively competed / judged PF occasionally, my overall preferences / views on debate haven't changed significantly but I'd place a significantly higher emphasis on deep research and evidence quality. Additionally, my tolerance for tricks / friv theory / clash evasive strategies is generally a lot lower than it used to be -- that being said I'm probably still more receptive to this than most PF judges and won't hack against it, just might not be as good at judging these rounds and will over-reward high-level strategic round vision in these debates.

With that in mind the below paradigm is largely up to date, and happy to answer any questions in round or prior via email.

Things that might need to have more emphasis given how long it's been since I debated (especially for PF):

1] Clarity -- please signpost clearly and slow down a little on taglines, I don't flow off the doc and won't go back unless you've marked cards.

2] Overviews / Round Vision -- Tell me what you're going to do before you do it, even if this is just 3 seconds of "High risk of a DA outweighs a mitigated case" at the top of the 2NR, it helps me know what's happening strategically, don't feel the need to overdo this compared to other rounds but if you don't do this already, try to do it (I promise other judges will also thank you with speaks boosts!)

3] Packaging / Simplicity -- In and out of debate I've realized that regardless of how complex arguments are going in, the hallmark of competence is being able to explain it simply. I used to be more on the side of thinking I'm stupid in these debates when the 2nr/2ar is unclear and going back through cards, rereading taglines and overviews to try and get an understanding of what was said. Today, I'll err more on the side of punishing you for long jargon-filled overviews, extension blocks that aren't tailored to the round and not being able to explain/contextualize your arguments in a simple way

4] I don't know the topic lol

5] I don't know if evidence ethics / file sharing standards in PF have gotten better over the years but I have absolutely zero tolerance -- send out docs (don't waste time/steal prep asking for cards) and don't miscut/paraphrase.

Paradigm:

I don't think you should worry about reading this too closely, I'll evaluate any argument however you tell me to in round and I will try to be as tab as possible butI do have biases which while I can try to keep them out of debate, some will implicitly be present and I feel like it would be better for me to make you aware of them rather than pretend they don't exist.

TL/DR: These are just my preferences as to what I believe is good for debate I won't default one way or another unless there is absolutely no pushback from either side.

Regardless, a ranking of how familiar I am with things:

Policy/K/T - 1

T-FW/K Affs - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 2

Dense Phil/ Pomo read as an NC - 3/4

Tricks - 4/5

K vs K debates -- 4/5 (I like them but I'm a coinflip heavily weighted towards the perm)

K Affs vs FW

- Been on both sides and these are my favorite debates to judge however I probably do lean slightly neg.

- CI's are good to resolve some offense and provide uqs for an impact turn but it's not necessary.

- 2N's need to do a better job winning the terminal impact to FW, don't overinvest into reading long blocks that explain why the aff is unfair/decks clash because let's be honest, they aren't gonna contest that most of the time, focus on implicating why that is important both in the context of debate and in the context of the affirmative.

- Framework 2nr's I've thought were excellent often use the same verbiage as the aff instead of using long o/v blocks.

- TVA/SSD to resolve some offense is good, even if it doesn't

- 7 minute 2nr's entirely on the case page often get confusing for me when they lack good judge instruction -- try and be clear as to what you are doing on teh case page before you get into the lbl

K

- good for larp v k

- bad for k v k (biased towards the perm + often get confused a lot); if I do end up unfortunately judging one of these, judge instruction is paramount. I will evaluate these debates generally knowing that theories of power are largely compatible. So, my ballot will be a reflection of differences between the aff and the alternative and the impact to those differences. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is worse than the aff, I vote aff. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is better than the aff, I vote neg.

- lbl > long o/v's

- Framework CI = you don't need an alt unless the aff says you do and winning links is sufficient if you've won framework

- Alts that result in the aff are fine absent a 1ar warrant why they aren't (being shady in cx is kinda annoying tho)

- Only understand cap, Moten/Harney, Warren (never read this in round), and a little bit of Baudrillard -- explanation is good.

- All the interactions that people consider "k tricks" should be implicated in the 1nc or else 2ar answers are justified (saying lines in the card make the claim most often doesn't really count)

LARP

- Like this a lot

- UQS prolly controls link direction

- all cp theory can be dtd granted a warrant

- hate reading cards and I will stay away from it as much as possible but end up having to read ev in most rounds.

- defense is underrated and can def be terminal if implicated as such (i.e: bill alr passed prolly is terminal)

- solves case explanation can be new in the 2nr as long as it was in 1nc evidence

- perm shields the link/cp links to nb -- explain these args to me! I'm not v smart/takes me time esp since I don't know the topic lit most likely

Phil

- Haven't read anything besides util/Kant and a little prag -- think it's hella interesting doe if that counts for anything

- Weighing is important, spend more time explaining your syllogism and why that excludes theirs.

- TJF's prolly o/w and are the move if I'm in the back

- weird complex ev mandates not-weird not-complex explanation

Theory

- Like this

- Weigh between standards

- low threshold to vote on rvis -- still need to justify them and w/e

- reasonability should be explained and is v strategic at times -- I will not vote on an RVI if you are going for reasonability obviously

Tricks

- will vote on these as long they are implicated fully in the speech they are read

- I can't flow for my life so like try and slow down a Lil bit

Evidence Ethics

- did pf for 2 years, cut cards weren't a thing, people paraphrased, the average card was shorter than T definitions, and evidence was sent via url's + ctrl F -- I really don't care at all about ev ethics until it's mentioned but i'm p sure my standards for ev ethics are very stringent so if you do call it out/stake the round on it in PF you will probably win 90% of the time

- if staking the round, that should happen the moment the violation is called out. -- don't read a shell and debate it out until the 2ar and then decide you wanna stake the round instead

(i.e: Miscut 1AC ev means you should stake the round immediately after you see it BUT at the very latest after 1nc cross)

Misc:

- I'm cool with post rounding -- not cool w/aggressive or toxic post rounding

- Clear judge instruction is really helpful

- Hate it when people steal prep

- hate unclear signposting

- Record your speeches in case audio cuts out

- time yourself and stop at the timer. (pls)

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.