Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Hi guys,

My name is Ashwika Bansal and I’m currently a PF debater.
A few things:

1. I will flow your round, but not crossfire. If you would like anything from crossfire to be considered, it must be brought up in another one of your speeches

2. Weigh, weigh, weigh! Weigh in your summary and weigh in your final focus

3. Also make sure to extend your arguments in both final speeches, if you do not bring an argument again, I will cross is of from my flow

4. Please try to keep crossfire civil, I understand y’all can get heated but try to keep things calm.

5. Absolutely no spreading

As for speaker points:

I will start at a 28 and either raise or lower from their. You will lose speaker points for being rude, speaking too fast, or stuttering and having long pauses. I will raise speaks if you speak with confidence and articulate your words.

Any racist, xenophobic, or just downright rude remarks mean an automatic loss. No questions asked.

Best of luck and have fun!

Be clear and concise. Please no new arguments during final focus.

As a progressive judge, I will approach the round with an open mind and a willingness to consider all arguments presented. I have 4 years experience in public forum debate and am comfortable with theory, kritiks, and shells in LD. However, my ultimate goal is to evaluate the round based on the soundness of the arguments presented. I will be looking for clear and well-supported claims, logical reasoning, and effective refutation of opposing arguments.

I am also comfortable with spreading, but if a debater chooses to spread, I ask that they flash their case to me for accessibility purposes. If your opponent is not comfortable with spreading don't . Be nice to one another. I like a good fair debate.

In terms of evaluating arguments, I will prioritize arguments that are well-supported. That being said, I welcome arguments that are new, exciting, and critical. I will also take into consideration the debaters' conduct and the overall structure of the round when making my decision.

At the end of the day, I want to see a FAIR debate.

(They/Them)

Yes, put me in the email chain. But also speechdrop >>> email chains.
keegandbosch@gmail.com

Experience: My personal competitive experience is mainly in IEs, though I have competed nationally in debate events and coached LD, Policy, and IE students. My debate background is primarily policy and NFA-LD.

Paradigm:
In all forms of debate, my primary concern as a judge is to remove as much subjectivity as possible. In the interest of this goal, I vote almost exclusively off of the flow. This is not to say, however, that I will blindly flow your arguments without thought. Ex: if your opponent drops an interpretation in their T flow, that does not mean you can define the word to mean whatever you want.

In the interest of being flow-centric, I try not to make assumptions and do the work for you. I will judge based on what actually happens in the round, not what I assume you meant should have happened. If you want credit for running an argument, I need you to actually run that argument.

I really appreciate debaters who give clear overviews in the final speeches. I want to be explicitly walked through the round so far, and told step-by-step what arguments I should prioritize and why. If you make it easy for me to vote for you, you will be happy with the vote.

I believe Kritikal argumentation is a vital cornerstone of inclusive debate practice, and I generally consider the K to be a priori. However, as with everything, if you can provide me with a solid argument why the K is bad and you debate on that flow better than your opponent, I will still vote against the K. It's not about what I believe, it's about who is the better debater in that round.

As long as you are supporting your arguments with strong evidence and you are debating well, I will not vote against you simply because I disagree with your claims. If your opponent doesn't disprove it analytically, I will not vote against it simply because of preference.

(NOTE: there are obviously exceptions to these rules. I will not vote in favor of something like "slavery good" or "women's suffrage bad." Any argument that is inherently problematic or harmful to others will not get my vote, even if you argue it better than your opponent. You don't get to hurt other people for a ballot.)


SPEAKER POINTS:
This is not my own words; it was shared with me by a teammate and I believe in the system as a method of removing subjectivity in scoring. (Updated as of 11:22 AM on 12/12/2015.)

27.3 or less-Something offensive occurred or something went terribly wrong
27.3-27.7- You didn't fill speech times, didn't flow, didn't look up from your laptop, mumbled, were unclear, or generally debated poorly
27.7-28.2- You are an average debater in your division who based on this rounds performance probably shouldn't clear but didn't do anything wrong per se...
28.2-28.5- Based on this rounds performance you might clear at the bottom.
28.5-28.9- You probably should clear in the middle/bottom based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
28.9-29.3- You probably should clear in the middle/top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
29.3-29.7- You probably should clear at the top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from below.
(You can also be moved in to this bracket from an above or below point bracket by debating someone in this bracket and performing well or debating someone in the lower point bracket and performing poorly. Or you can move up in brackets by doing stuff that was compelling in the round, such as reading arguments I liked, made me think, were technically proficient, or generally did something interesting.)

Version for tournaments that force whole-number speaks:

25 - Something went awry
26 - Probably won't clear, but nothing was wrong
27 - Should clear at the bottom
28 - Should clear in the middle
29 - Should probably clear at the top
30 - Exceptional

If both speakers fall into the same category, the winner will bump up 1 point. A few random notes (I update these as things come up)

About Specific Issues (I update these as things come up in rounds)

Re: in-round abuse. I am extremely sympathetic to in-round abuse. If you treat your opponent's poorly and they read a theory shell about why that's a reason to reject the team, odds are fairly good that I'll buy into that line of argumentation. You can avoid this by not being a jerk to your opponents.

Re: post-rounding. I do everything in my power to give a clear and thorough explanation of the round and why I voted the way I did. I am happy to answer questions about the round and do what I can to give you a sense of how to improve moving forward. I am happy to spend as much time after the round as you need answering questions and discussing the round. HOWEVER, I guarantee that debating me post-round will not change my ballot. I always submit my ballot before disclosure. Post-round debating just creates a hostile space for judges and debaters alike, and it's not the image of debate that I want to create.

Re: evidence sharing. In ALL FORMATS I want to be included on the email chain or the speechdrop. Particularly in PF, I don't like the community norm of asking for evidence after the speech and taking a bunch of time off the clock to find and share evidence. Your speech docs should be put together before the speech, and you should send your speech to the email chain or send it in the speech drop before you speak.

Re: speed. I am completely fine with spreading, but YOU are responsible for clarity. I will call clear twice in a speech. After that, if I don't get it on the flow, then I don't get it on the flow. Speed is only okay as long as it isn't excluding anybody from the round. If your opponent asks for a slow debate, don't spread them out of the round, be inclusive first and foremost. But I personally love speed, so don't slow down for me, certainly.

TL;DR
I will vote for the team who debates better, regardless of what techniques are used to do so (so long as those arguments are not harmful to others.) WHAT YOU ARE MOST COMFORTABLE AND CLEAN DEBATING WITH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT I LIKE. If you have any questions, coaches and students can contact me at keegandbosch@gmail.com

Jane Boyd

School: Grapevine HS - Interim Director of Debate and Speech

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

School affiliation/s – Grapevine HS

Years Judging/Coaching - 39

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event 39

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Public Forum Debate

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lincoln Douglas Debate

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

Framework/Values/Criteria/Standards/Burdens

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

Evidence and Basic Argumentation:

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

Flow and Voters:

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

Presentation:

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

Kritik:

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

Theory:

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

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WORLD SCHOOL DEBATE

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

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

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

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

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

I flow each speech.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you resolve model quibbles?

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

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

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

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy Debate:

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

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

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

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

I'm pretty close to tabula rasa. I'm not going to tell the contestants what to say to persuade me; it's up to them to come up with that. If contestants weigh arguments, I consider the relative weight they assign when evaluating the round.

I do have some preferences, though. I prefer real world topical arguments to fanciful ones (e.g., Harry Potter DA). I prefer resolution based arguments to theory, though I understand that sometimes theory is useful. I tend not to vote neg on topicality unless they can show aff's case is clearly abusive. I will vote on what is presented in the round, though, not based on an idea of what I think debate should look like.

I also have some preferences regarding structure. Signpost, signpost, signpost! Refer to arguments by which points and sub-points they fall under, as well as the sources of the cards.

I have no philosophical objection to speed, but if you speak to quickly for me to flow, you won't get credit for all your arguments. Word economy is preferable to speed.

My competition background is in LD. I have been judging LD and PF for about 10 years now. I also judge WS, but not CX (except for an NCX round once in a blue moon).

Ask me anything else you would like to know; I'm very approachable.

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

Millard North '17, currently a PhD student in Philosophy at Villanova University^

Head of Debate at the Brearley School

^ [I am more than happy to discuss studying philosophy or pursuing graduate school with you!]

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 9/26/2023

Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum

The Short Version

As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific items, I will address those here:

1. What are their qualifications?

I learned debate in Omaha, Nebraska before moving to the East Coast where I have gained most of my coaching experience. I qualified to both NSDA Nationals and the TOC in my time as a student. I have taught numerous weeks at a number of debate summer camps and have been an assistant and head coach at Lake Highland and Brearley respectively.

2. What will they listen to?

Anything (besides practices which exclude other participants) - but I increasingly prefer substantive engagement over evasive tactics, tricks, and theory cheap shots.

3. What are they experienced in?

I coach a wide variety of arguments and styles and am comfortable adjudicating any approach to debate. However, I spend most of my time thinking about kritik and framework arguments, especially Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Deleuze.

4. What do they like?

I don’t have many preconceived notions of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

I try to evaluate debates systematically. I begin by working to discern the priority of the layers of arguments presented, such as impact weighing mechanisms, kritiks, theory arguments, etc. Once I have settled on a priority of layers, I evaluate the different arguments on each, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and try to find an adequate resolution to the debate.

The Longer Version

At bottom debate is an activity aimed at education. As a result, I understand myself as having in some sense an educational obligation in my role as a judge. While that doesn't mean I aim to impose my own ideological preferences, it does mean I will hold the line on actions and arguments which undermine these values.

I no longer spend time thinking about the minutia of circuit debate arguments, nor am I as proficient as I once was at flowing short and quickly delivered arguments. Take this into consideration when choosing your strategy.

Kritiks

I like them. I very much value clarity of explanation and stepping outside of the literature's jargon. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for in the debate.

I am a receptive judge to critical approaches to the topic from the affirmative. I don't really care what your plan is; you should advocate for what you can justify and defend. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality.

Theory

I really have no interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments which are presented in bad faith and/or with willfully ignorant or silly justifications and premises. Please just do not - I will lower your speaker points and am receptive to many of the intuitive responses. I do however enjoy legitimate abuse stories and/or topicality arguments based on topic research.

Policy Arguments

I really like these debates when debaters step outside of the jargon and explain their scenarios fully as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am a strong judge for spin and smart extrapolation. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates.

Ethical Frameworks

I greatly enjoy these debates and I spend pretty much all of my time thinking about, discussing, and applying philosophy. I would implore you to give overview explanations of your theory and the main points of clash between competing premises in later speeches.

If your version of an ethical framework involves arguments which you would describe as "tricks," or any claim which is demonstrably misrepresenting the conclusions of your author, I am not the judge for you.

Public Forum

I usually judge Lincoln Douglas but am fairly familiar with the community norms of Public Forum and how the event works. I will try to accommodate those norms and standards when I judge, but inevitably many of my opinions above and my background remain part of my perception.

Debaters must cite evidence in a way which is representative of its claims and be able to present that evidence in full when asked by their opponents. In addition, you should be timely and reasonable in your asking for, and receiving of, said evidence. I would prefer cases and arguments in the style of long form carded evidence with underlining and/or highlighting. I am fairly skeptical of paraphrasing as it is currently practiced in PF.

Speaks and Ethics Violations

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C. However, less serious accusations of misrepresentation, misciting, or miscutting, should be addressed in the round in whatever format you determine to be best.

Pronouns: (she/her)

Preferred name: Kat

I would like to be on the email chain: cazeaupatricia@gmail.com

*****IF YOU READ/REFERENCE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT/VIOLENT CONTENT I AM NOT THE JUDGE FOR YOU.*****

Debated at Liberty, and I debated policy for 4 years in high school (shout out to Long Branch High!).

My credentials ig:

- 2021 NDT third team

- 2022 NDT First Round (TOP TEN YERRRR)

- First Liberty invite to the Kentucky Round Robin

- Long Branch High volunteer Policy Coach

- Judged Policy, LD, Parli, PF, and speech events

Kritiks:

I'm a black woman with an immigrant background. Do with that what you will.

If you're a K team, I'm a huge fan of K's! I'm familiar with: Cap K, Thoreau, Antiblackness, Afropess, Afrofuturism, Orientalism, Bataille, Nietzsche, Fem, Baudrillard, and I'm sure I'm missing others. Just bc I'm comfortable with these, don't be sure I'll know all of your buzz-words and theory. Explanations are good, detailed explanations are best.

If you win the following, you'll win the debate:

1.) Give me the Link. Just because I consider the truth doesn't mean that you could assert that the Aff is racist, sexist, neoliberal, or whatever without a specific link. If you can prove to me why the foundations of the Aff are suspect and make your impacts worse, you've done your job and the link debate is yours.

2.) Impact weighing. I need clash and impact comparison. Sure, tell me what your impact is and why it matters, but explain why it matters in relation to your opponent's impacts (ie: structural violence is happening now, extinction is far off. Immediacy outweighs).

3.) Alt explanation. I gotta know what it does. In explaining the Alt, you need to explain how it's different from the SQUO, and why a permutation wouldn't immediately resolve your impacts and the links. If you don't need to win the Alt, just gotta explain why not.

4.) Judge Instruction. Give it to be straight, what do you want me to do? What is my role in the discussion/in this competitive space? What are the implications of the ballot?

Do these things, and you're golden. :^)

K-Affs:

Do most of the same stuff as above, only difference is that you should have substantive answers to framework. Again, don't just assert that FW is sexist, racist, whatever WITHOUT a reason why. I jive with K-Affs, and I think performances could be powerful. Just make sure everything is done with a purpose.

Your counter-interpretation is the framing for my ballot as well as the model of debate you advocate for. I'll vote on any, esp if the other team drops it.

ROB's are muy importante in a framework debate.

I'm guilty of wildly-long overviews-- but for your sake pls no more than 2 minutes. Pls.

Policy, because I can't abandon my first love:

I love me some tasty DA's and CP's, as long as the internal link chain makes sense.

I'm sympathetic to Condo as an arg if it's 6+ off. Anything below that and you're on your own, my friend.

Impact turns are cool. I'll vote for anything as long as it isn't death/extinction good and structural violence/racism good.

Framework:

1.) FAIRNESS ISN'T AN IMPACT! It's an internal link to education.

2.) Clash is the most convincing impact to me.

3.) Predictability is sort of a toss-up. If you didn't prepare for Cap or other K's that you knew would come with the topic after the first few tournaments, that's on you. But I will vote for it if you tell me how predictability makes you all better debaters.

Please do not put me in any T or Theory debates. I can't do it.

***PF***

>Impact calc is MUY IMPORTANTE!!! Weigh between your and your opponent's impacts, please. Explain why you outweigh.

>Ask QUESTIONS in Cross-Fire! This is two-fold: 1. "[explains case]... what do you say to that?" isn't a question, and 2. Being POLITE when asking questions is key. Please don't bully the other team.

>Tell me how to write my ballot, and what you're going to win on in this debate.

>I'm a policy person so I don't see a problem with counterplans in PF. This being said, "This is PF, counterplans aren't allowed!" isn't an argument. Attack it instead.

>In addition, speed isn't a problem for me. But do recognize that if the other team makes it a voter, you have to justify your use of speed in that instance.

>And please, PLEASE, answer as many of the opponent's arguments WHILE extending your case. Chances are they didn't answer everything you said.

>Finally... have funsies. :^)

If you're racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, rude, or discriminatory in any way toward your partner or opponent, I will stop the round and your speaks are getting docked. Behaviors like that make the debate space less hospitable. And, yes, that includes extremely 'punking' the other team.

Rhetoric is a voter. If it frames the debate and it's a big enough deal to potentially ruin your debate experience, I'll vote on it.

HAVE FUN!

Hello. I am a first-year parent judge. Feel free to review my record for experience so far.

1. Manner: Please be respectful to the other team. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
2. Speed: If you plan to talk fast, make sure you are loud and clear.
3. Evidence: Provide credentials/qualifications of the source unless it is self-explanatory.
4. Topic: I have basic knowledge of the topic. Please spell out all acronyms and organizations because I may not know them.

I always disclose if time allows and the other judges in the same debate agree. You can email me if you have any questions on my paradigm or RFD.

Good luck!

mikeqc@gmail.com

they/she. astrid, not judge.

astridmeadowww@gmail.com – email subject lines should be: “[tournament] round [#] – [aff team] – [neg team]”

ferris 19-21 – CM: arms sales, CJR. west georgia 21-23 – CF: antitrust. CL: legal personhood. gap year(s) 23-?.

conflicts: Chattahoochee high school, North Broward BK, Fox Chapel TR, Brookfield East SM

NDT doubles 2023, TOC participant 2021.

non-negotiables / “rules”

Debates have one winner and one loser. I will evaluate the entire debate. I will award speaker points at my own discretion. High school policy debates have 4 participants, each of whom gives one 8 minute constructive speech and one 5 minute rebuttal speech. High school LD debates have 2 participants and strange speech times, but I will enforce them regardless. Prep time is allotted by the tournament and ends when the document is sent, no earlier. Clipping accusations end the debate and are an issue for tabroom, not me. Safety concerns end the debate and are an issue for tabroom, not me. Please keep your shoes on. If something is not listed here, it is up for contestation.

notes on evidence practices

Everyone must highlight their cards in a way which makes a complete argument while maintaining coherent grammar and the authors intent. Most highlighting has become so atrocious that I will happily evaluate arguments along the lines of “this highlighting is horrible” as either reasons to strike evidence entirely or even vote a certain way. If arguments about highlighting quality are not made, poor highlighting will be reflected in poor speaker points and a frustrated RFD.

You can insert re-highlightings which amount to "they've misrepresented their own argument" or "this isn't actually what the evidence says" as long as you say analytically why this is the case. You must read re-highlightings which make a new argument. For example: alt causes, solvency deficits, disad link concessions, you get the idea.

tl:dr

policy – aff-neg all time voting record: 38-45.

LD – aff-neg all time voting record: 6-11.

Debate is good because it is a lawless, vacuous and sophistic game. Debaters should read whatever they deem the most strategic path to the ballot. No argument is off limits*. Tech over “truth” is absolute. A complete argument consists of a claim, warrant** and implication; incomplete arguments needn’t be answered and will not be evaluated. It is a debaters burden to make an argument before it is their opponents burden to answer it. I will hold the line on this.

*though I won’t immediately end the debate over someone forwarding a controversial or “evil” argument, I am very sympathetic to responses like “this argument is evil, reading it is a reason to reject the team regardless of the rest of the debate” when supplemented by a substantive response to the argument. Be reasonable. Make good arguments.

**some warrants are self-evident/implied. We needn’t have a debate about easily observable & provable phenomena which exist in the status quo. Use your intuition to determine the level of analysis you need to win each argument.

the long version.

Honestly, the rest of this paradigm is largely unimportant ramblings because of my near total ambivalence regarding content, but exists for the sake of optimizing everyone’s pref sheets given the tragic inevitability of pre-existing bias influencing how convincing any given argument is to me. I am imperfect. If something is evenly debated, exceptionally messy, or not debated at all, the following paragraphs are insights to my defaults and tie-breakers.

about me / overarching biases

I am a grumpy trans woman who cares about debate very much, though not for any external reasons like “community” or “skills”. I like debate because it is a space which allows people to be creative and express themselves and their ideas; I love debate because of the way those things are facilitated by and interact with its competitive form. I am a very competitive girl and a “policy” 2N at heart, but I have primarily read critical arguments throughout my career given the size of programs I’ve attended, partner preferences, topics debated, and my more personal research interests.

I think of debate as very similar to music. In the same way there is a very technical, theoretically complex, even mathematical way to go about each, there is also a much more artistic, fluid, and creative way. The best debaters and musicians are able to merge technical understanding and proficiency with an ethos which conveys unique ideas and character, though each school of thought is more than capable of producing something beautiful and revolutionary alone. If this doesn’t make sense to you don’t worry too much, simply do what you’re best at and I will appreciate it.

I’m more sympathetic to accommodations and arguments regarding flowability than a lot of judges. I am a slow writer, I am losing hearing in my right ear, and I flow on paper. I will have the speech document open to minimize my errors, but I will only check it to clarify and elaborate on arguments I’ve already heard. I will not use it to fill gaps and compensate for anyone’s lack of clarity and organization. Please slow down on tags, authors, qualifications, dates, and analytics. If anyone else has a (non-safety) related accommodation request, send an email to me and your opponents before the debate so I have a record of it and can fairly evaluate arguments you may make if said accomodations are not met.

Influences & contemporaries include, but are not limited to: Geoff Lundeen, Sarah Lundeen, Jason Regnier, Adrienne Brovero, Dylan Kirkpatrick, Joe Skoog, Nathan Fleming, Julian Kuffour, Kate Marin, David Sposito, Jordan Keller, Patrick Fox, Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz, Moss McCullough, and Blaine Montford.

on policy throwdowns

The affirmative has the burden of proof and the negative has the burden of rejoinder. For the negative this means, at least, I value case defense more highly than many and, at most, I am more willing to pull the trigger on presumption against poorly constructed affirmatives. For the affirmative this means the same emphasis on defense applies to disadvantages, and I'm very willing to listen to 2AC tricks like intrinsicness tests, weird permutations, and anything else you can think of that amounts to “this argument doesn’t necessarily prove the plan is a bad idea.”

I slightly prefer straight up policy strategies over tricky ones, but that is quickly overridden when the tricks are well executed and provide obvious strategic benefit. I value evidence quality and story both very highly in these debates. The best practice is obviously having both good cards and a good story. Though if lacking one, Debaters can get me to vote for an extremely contrived, improbable internal link chain if they have the evidentiary goods, and I am just as happy to vote for a smart analytic argument against contrived scenarios. Debaters should take time to clarify exactly how I should evaluate analytics vs evidence to minimize the chance of me evaluating these arguments in a way they may not like.

Magnitude times probability is not the only way to do impact calculus, and becomes exceptionally problematic when dealing with extinction because of the potential value of future generations. To resolve this, below a certain probability threshold, I think magnitude ceases to matter almost entirely. Given debate doesn’t deal with percentages, determining the threshold relies more or less on gut checks which are able to leverage the tech over truth paradigm. This means I’m probably better for soft left affirmatives or smaller disadvantages than a lot of policy people assuming both sides are reading comparably good evidence to defend their impact calculus.

I lean slightly affirmative on all theory questions except topicality because I prefer debates which contain less BS and more clash. My like/dislike for an argument is directly proportional to the amount of clash it is capable of producing or mitigating respectively. Impact turns have my heart. If the 2AR is 5 minutes of no neg fiat the floor of the 2A's speaks is a 29. If the 1NC is zero off the floor of both negative debaters speaks is a 29.

on critiques

I hate overviews. Do line-by-line. I’ve been around debate long enough I am familiar with most of this literature.

The most interesting and important things in these debates are competition and framework. If the aff gets to weigh the plan it will outweigh most critiques absent substantial case defense, and if the aff doesn’t get to weigh the plan it will usually lose if the critique is competitive. What exactly makes a critique competitive is up for debate, but consider that permutation debates get really messy absent a theory debate which tells me how I should evaluate the kind of competition created by the link. If the link is to discourse, but the permutation says the alternative doesn’t functionally compete with the plan, I’m not sure how to compare those because they operate on totally different levels. The critique needs to disprove the desirability of the aff. I am probably not voting negative on “the aff is bad because didn’t solve everything ever”, but I am willing to evaluate negative link arguments to basically anything which is present in affirmative speeches, not just the plan.

KvK debates are probably where I’m the worst because of the aforementioned competition point. These debates are messy because the permutation is OP and I’m not sympathetic to “no permutations because it’s too broken” given the obvious aff response is “no permutations is even more broken.” That said, the standard for competition is much lower in these debates and I’m far more down for PIK type arguments than I would be against a policy aff. If you have me in the back for one of these feel free to get super far into the weeds of your literature. I know lots of authors commonly read in debate disagree with each other over small issues, but this usually gets ignored because the scope is so small that it doesn’t work within the usual argumentative strategy of debate. KvK debates are where those disagreements can see the light of competition. Just tell me exactly what it is about the affirmative your criticism disagrees with – be it their theory of power, their entire advocacy, their tactics, the fact they’re reading the aff in debate, author choice, language, or whatever – and cover the rest of your usual bases and I’m down to decide the debate over something which may seem extremely miniscule when compared to the usual scope of disagreement in debate.

Though the above maybe reads like I'm a hater, I promise I'm not. I spent high school reading either Baudrillard or Deleuze on both sides and I spent my only full year of college going for Marxism in every single negative debate against an affirmative with a plan except the two I went for topicality. I still spend my free time reading postmodern philosophy. My current thing is Bataille if anyone cares. The policy debater in me likes when links are more specific to the affirmative and able to re-contextualize advantages in favor of the negative, while the high theory hack in me says the negative can create link arguments from anything they choose, especially if the block is hot and the 2AC is not. The "death" K is OP.

on topicality framework

If you are only ever on side of this debate, I am fine for you, but you should probably pref me below people who will be more biased in your favor. If you are a team who reads a critical affirmative, but wants to maintain the option of going for framework on the negative, you should pref me very highly.

My biases on this question very slightly favor the negative, but the affirmatives preparation advantage in these debates generally offsets those biases because, when evaluating these debates, I care more about specific analysis and world building than anything else. Impact work is framed by the interpretation / counter-interpretation debate. Aff teams should think more about the counter-interpretation (and reasonability). Neg teams should be more willing to punish aff teams that don’t bother trying to mitigate their offense. Everyone should read less blocks and do more line-by-line.

My overarching personal belief regarding this activity is that the only intrinsic, inherent, and terminal impact to debate is debate itself. Thus, I tend to vote for whatever model produces the best debates. When determining the best model, I think of fairness and education as the thesis and antithesis which produce the synthesis of debate. Both are necessary components of the activity, but neither is enough in and of itself to create a model worth defending. Conversely, a model which substantially or entirely lacks one or both is worth criticizing. No model is perfect and there is ample, specific, nuanced ground for both sides in these debates.

That said, debate means something different to each person and it is not my place or within my ability to dictate what each person gets out of this activity or why each person is here, so arguments about community, skills, and other things which I may not personally be here for, but someone else conceivably may be, are still worth making. These arguments are most convincing when articulated as internal links which influence the quality of rounds and least convincing when articulated as ends in and of themselves (though I have voted on & once went for “framework solves extinction”).

Not rehashing any obvious content takes here. Yes switch side and the TVA matter. Yes the aff matters. Yes structural and procedural fairness are different. etc. etc. Framework debates are more or less a "solved" part of the game which now exist more as a formula for teams to execute or a logic problem for judges to solve than anything new or unique. This is why my preference in these debates is for more specific arguments about how a given affirmative on a given topic interacts with the broader models defended over arguments everyone has heard for almost as long as I've been alive. If you would like to talk to me more about my thoughts regarding the meta-theory of strategy games, my email is at the top.

on speaker points

average points given: TBD

I am still working to determine my overall margin of error when compared to the average, but I know I tend to give points on the lower end. So I’m offering opportunities to get free points to offset my tendency to underrate debaters which also make the world a slightly better place.

+.1 for bringing me black coffee before the debate

+.1 for full open-source. tell me after the 2AR.

email me with any questions, job offers, scouting requests, or other inquiries. happy to talk, coach, or judge debate whenever.

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

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

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

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

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

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

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

About me:

Email: mcopeland2017@gmail.com

Background: Currently, I am a coach for Liberty University, where I also debated for four years, NDT Octofinalist and CEDA Octofinalist; I started by doing policy args, moved to Kritical/performance things with most of my arguments starting with black women and moving outward such as Cap, AB, Set Col, and so on). As a novice, I started debate in college and worked my way to varsity, so I have a pretty good understanding of each division.

Judging wise (general things)

How I view debate: Debate is, first and foremost, a game, but it's full of real people and real consequences, so we should keep that in mind as we play, even though it's a game with real-life implications for many of us.

Facial Expressions: I often make facial expressions during the debate, and yes, they are about the debt, so I would pay attention to it; my face will usually let you know when I am vibing and when I'm confused

Speaker points: --- subjective these days. I try to start at 28.7 and then go up and down based on a person's performance in a debate. Do you want to earn higher speaks? Don't risk clarity over speed. I'm not straining my ear to understand what you are saying. And a 2NR and 2AR that have judge instruction and tell me what I am voting on are chefs ki.ss

K AFFs --Tend to think these should be in the direction of the room. You should be prepared to answer these questions if you read these affs. What is the point of reading the 1AC in debate? What is your beef with the debate or the resolution? I think you need to have a reason why people should have to engage with your model of debate and why the education you produce is good.

K's --- What's the link? Links need to be contextualized to the aff; generally, don't be generic or links of omission unless they are entirely dropped—the more specific the aff, the better. Leveraging the framework in your favor is an underrated strategy, but I enjoy those debates. At the end of the debate, some explanation of the alternative that solves the links needs to be explained. Less is more condensed than the K in the 2NR, and you can sit and contextualize the args you go for to the 1AC and what is happening in the debate. In general, I understand most K's. Still, you should assume that I don't explain your literature base/theory or power, especially if you read psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, or anything like that in front of me.

(Putting the K on the case page makes my flow so messy, and I like pretty flows....lol)

Policy AFFs -- I always think less is more; the more advantages and scenarios, the less likely those internal link scenarios make sense.

Framework -- Framework makes the game work. The most important thing with the framework is getting OFF your blocks and answering the specific offense. I don't think TVA has to solve all of the AFF, but I do think they need to be TOPICAL, and I think you need to prove that they can access the same scholarship under the TVA.

DAs and CPs -- These are fine; CPs need to be competitive and solve the aff or significant portions of the aff with a net benefit. DAs are okay links that should be specific to the aff, and impact weighing in the 2NR is key.

Theory: Theory is fine, but just reading blocks back and forth at one another is not --- to win theory, a significant portion of the 2NR and 2AR need to be dedicated to them to win this in front of me -- and disclosure is something I would say I have a higher threshold on really need to prove in round abuse to win

Hi! I am a lay judge.

I dislike spreading and value interacting with your opponent's arguments well.

Former National Qualifier in LD; Head Coach; Senior Debate Instructor for Capitol Debate

General: No spreading, no K's

Lincoln-Douglas

I am an old school LD'er. I want a lot of value clash. Your case should be supported by philosophy. I think evidence cards are important but I don't believe that you have to be doing evidence clash the entire round to win. Usually, the person who wins the value debate wins the round.

Every contention should tie back to your value and criterion. Bringing up cross examination in your rebuttals is a plus.

The NR should just be 3 minutes of defense, and 3 minutes of voting issues. The 2AR should only be voting issues.

Public Forum

Have a weighing mechanism. Definitions and Observations are good if applicable to the resolution, and I do want you to revisit them in Summary and Final Focus. Rebuttal should include evidence clash. I may call for cards if I question the validity of the evidence.

In Crossfire, please be polite. While I don't flow crossfire, I do consider it in my final decision.

Summary - go over main points from rebuttal, collapse on main issues

Final Focus - voting issues only.

World Schools

I'm very big on framework. Definitions and burdens will be very important. If it's an esoteric resolution, it would be nice to get some history/background info before delving into your argumentation.

I like hearing arguments that can tie into the real world - per the NSDA, Prop and Opp teams should engage with the debate on a principled level and a pragmatic level. While evidence is good, it's also good to be able to argue your position on a logical level.

I don't really like it when teams reject every single POI. While you don't have to answer every one, you should be able to answer at least one per speech. Answering POI's can strengthen your argument if you are prepared.

The reply speech should just be voters/crystallization.

Finally, I really value clear, succinct speaking without too much repetition.

For the rounds I am judging, I will be looking for appropriate mechanisation of the arguments presented, proper analysis of their full impact and clear cohesion and structure in the way they are presented. I will also be paying special attention to how you explicate the magnitude and time frame of the arguments that you believe best sum your case and help your side and stance. A crucial part of that is that you strategically collapse on your strongest argument and zoom in on their magnitude.

In terms of style, the most important thing for me is that you are first and foremost respectful of one another. There is nothing wrong with having a strong assertive style, and even a strongly critical when questioning the other team, but you should never attack another's debate person or offend them in any way while doing that. Beyond this, I appreciate clarity and being able to follow your flow from one argument to the next - in other words, slow down!

Finally, I want to be able to see clear evidence of collaboration between you and your teammate in terms of how your arguments build on top of one another without duplication and how you refer to the points made by your teammate in your speech to enhance your analysis.

P.S: my face does weird things some times when I am engrossed in notetaking or deep thought, I can promise you it is no reflection of how you're doing so don't be intimidated and have fun!

Basic Information About Myself
Currently a Junior at Indiana University debating policy arguments as a 1A/2N. I am double majoring in Political Science and Economics. I spent ages 12-17 in Chennai, India and 1-11 in Indianapolis,Indiana. Add me to the email chain: iuaarondebate@gmail.com

WSD

I come from a policy background so my flow will be important for me. That does not mean stating that they dropped an argument is enough as there still needs to be warranting and explanation of how this argument interacts in the round. The best way for high speaks for me is about identifying the right arguments that you are winning on and explaining what these arguments are and why they outweighs the other teams arguments. I really enjoy when POI's are used effectively in the following speeches but they should not be used abundantly preventing the other team from communicating their speech.

Me being from a Policy Debate background doesn't mean you should spread or following other policy norms instead of following WSD norms as I still understand the value students get from WSD.

Cx

T: Hard to win off tbh. If you are trying to go for it explain why their aff is not topical and give specifics why your not able to debate against. Reading blocks that have no references to the round in particular are not going to get you the W

K: I am not really deep in K lit but aware of the most prevalent ones in debate. Judge direction is important regarding FW. Explain the Alt and how it works in the context of the round since the same alt can be used in different ways depending on the scenario. Think of me of having no idea what it means and explain how it can at least partially solve some of case. Also having good case defense makes it easier for me to vote for the K.

CP: Explain how the CP solves or the solvency deficits depending on what side you are on. Cool with Adv CPs and Process CPs.

DA: Explain why the DA outweighs the Aff advantages or the other weigh around. Explain how the DA turns the arguments or vice versa clearly

PF thoughts

There's obviously differences between PF and Policy. However, most of the stuff above applies here as well Explain your cards well. Make sure you highlight your warrants well in the evidence you do use. Don't summarize your evidence.

Hi I am a parent judge:

I would like it if you didn't speak fast and spoke clearly

Also I don't like it when people talk over each other in cross

I wish both teams good luck in the debate

Hello!! I'm Alan, a debater/judge/student with around 6 years of public forum experience. I've judged some tournaments, yet I am unfamiliar with the topic this time and do not have much experience with the style of U.S. circuit debaters. Please be polite, don't spread and be clear with your speeches.

Good luck and HAVE FUN!!!

Please do not spread and speak clearly. During cross fire, please ensure you are sticking to the topic and/or the argument brought up. Provide evidence. Be respectful to your opponents

Emilyn Hazelbrook (she/her)

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

Kamiak '21, Emory '25. Debated policy for four years in high school and in my third year of college debate, although I am not nearly as involved as I once was in the activity.

I adapt to you, not the other way around. Everything below will make it easier for me to understand, weigh, and vote for your arguments, but shouldn't dissuade you from reading anything.

LD for Barkley Forum 2024: I have judged approximately 10 rounds of LD in my life and none on this topic. The closer your debating style resembles policy, the more easily I will be able to evaluate arguments, but I do have experience with evaluating criterion/value debates. My best advice to you is to focus on clash and responding intelligently to the other person's arguments and over-explain terms on this topic. Ask me as many questions before the round as you need.

Tech > Truth.

Argument = claim + warrant (and + impact or reason why it matters in rebuttals). If you say "they dropped the link" and then do not explain warrants and impact out why I should vote on it, I will not vote on it.

K Affs — Your reason for not defending the resolution should be built into your 1ac. You should prioritize line by line over extensive overviews. Impact turns are more persuasive than counter-interp debating, and clash makes a bit more sense as an impact over fairness, although I will vote on either.

Topicality — I default to competing interps. Make sure to explain what debates would look like under your interp and theirs in rebuttals and read case lists.

Theory — Condo is good until you read 4+ advocacies. Everything but condo is a reason to reject the argument, and I can’t see myself voting on most procedurals unless they're egregiously mishandled. Please slow down on theory standards—you're only speaking as fast as I can flow.

Kritiks — Read very specific links and err on the side of over-explaining your thesis and alt. I'll probably weigh the 1ac impacts, but if the aff is losing that your reps/in-round actions make the world/debate worse, you're in a bad place. I am not the best for postmodernism kritiks and will likely be confused if I have to render a decision on one.

Counterplans — I lean neg on most questions of competition, although I am really not a fan of consult cps. If you're aff, read solvency deficits specific to your aff’s mechanism and smart perms. I default to judge kick if the neg says the cp is conditional, but I also think that smart 2ns won't spend time extending a losing cp.

Disadvantages — Compare the aff and disad impacts in rebuttals and read turns case arguments. I prefer topic-specific disads, but enjoy politics disads when debated with very specific links.

Case — Debates where neg teams invest time into picking apart the 1ac are my favorite to judge. Impact turns, circumvention, and analytics pressing the internal links/aff mechanism are much better than generic impact defense.

Miscellaneous — High-quality historical examples, well-executed jokes, and really good CX will boost your speaker points. Suffering, violence, and death are unquestionably bad. I like debaters who make it easy for me to flow them by numbering arguments, signposting clearly, and avoiding extensive overviews or walls at the top of the flow. I dislike people who cross the line between assertive and unnecessarily rude during CX, and will factor that into speaker points.

Be nice and have fun!

Rounds are meant to be fun and you should go for any argument you feel comfortable defending, that being said it is your job to tell me the link at every level. Don't assume that I'll make the link, show me your work and tell me how you access your impacts. Be kind to your opponents, you can be assertive and strong in cross, but it doesn't mean you have to be rude. Jargon is ok but you better understand what you are saying and how it applies to a case, don't just say weighing or scope if you can't show me what those things actually mean. I can be fairly expressive in rounds, don't read into my non-verbal reactions!

When judging a debate, there are a few important things that I look for. The first thing that I look for is good sportsmanship. All debaters should show respect to one another and encourage each other. Next, it is important that each debater has a clear understanding of their topic which should be supported by reliable sources. Lastly, it is important that the debaters are able to rebut their opponents points. 

Thank you,

Alana Itkin

Respect is very important attribute for me. I expect the teams to respect each other.

I keep tab on the flow & time on my own. I would like to see each team use the time appropriately.

I would prefer if the debaters spoke clearly at a reasonable speed rather than rushing.

I am a lay judge.

Please strive to be clear, understandable and respectful. Signpost and remember that I cannot flow spreading effectively.

Best of luck!

I am a parent judge. Speak slowly and clearly. Avoid jargon. Explain your points in the simplest terms.

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

Berkeley:

I have done no topic research. Assume I know nothing

I debated PF for 4 years

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to be in the summary and the final focus

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis please

• If there’s an evidence misconduct problem, I’d rather you point out the issues with your opponent’s interpretation of evidence during your speeches, but I’ll call for a card if you tell me to.

• Any concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow it

• Don't Spread at me. If I need a case doc to follow you, it's too fast.

• I'm not flowing anything after the 10-second grace period

I am a veteran teacher that loves vigorous debate and discussions. I prefer students to engage the topic with insightful and meaningful arguments. Be kind in the debate to the other students and make sure to respond to arguments made by your opponents.

Don't spread - I prefer conversation speed. If you go faster than that then you do so at your own risks.

Be firm and aggressive but not rude - I enjoy a heated debate but not mean and rude comments or disrespectfulness during speeches.

I wouldn't consider myself to be a specialized debate judge so if you use a bunch of debate jargon that may not work out well for you.

If you have questions feel free to ask. Good luck!

Senior at DuPont Manual, PF for 6ish years

add me to email chain: rkkahloon@gmail.com

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

Keep it chill. debating is more fun when everyone is relaxed and not yelling at each other during speeches and cross, im also as a judge more receptive to someone who keeps their cool and has been speaking calmly then being rude to their opponents

Tech Judge. Lean very heavy on the techier side of debate, I don't personally like tech over truth though bc to me keeping the public in public forum matters and I can always appreciate good lay rhetoric and i generally dont mess with really dumb but technically true arguments

Preferably no prog. Never really been a fan, I'll evaluate theory and K's (nothing else, especially no trix) but the threshold for me buying the arguments will be a lot higher. If there is a legitimate abuse, say something and I'll probably up you.

Above 200 wpm send doc. Just a safety kind of thing, I was a pretty fast debater so I can probably keep up but I also don't want to hear what your saying wrong so send a doc to be safe.

I don't flow over time. Keep track of your own time and keep track of your opponents, if ur opponents are over just show me they are and i'll stop flowing.

I don't flow cross. Cross is binding of course but i wont be flowing it. if someone says something important bring it up in a speech and ill evaluate it there.

Signpost and brief roadmap. Tell me where we are on the flow especially on contentions and different responses so I don't miss anything and a quick little "aff then neg" before speech is perfect.

Extend Extend Extend. If it's not in summary don't put it in ff. All offense should be extended clearly and should also generally just be implicated. Defense is sticky.

I default util for fw. bring up and debate frameworks if u want, my default though is util.

Be creative and have fun. I'll give pretty high speaks regardless but if you have fun and are creative in what you're doing ill give u 30. Debate can be pretty boring so i'll probably inherently be more likely to vote for you if youre a memorable team.

If u have any other questions before round ask me cause this is all i can think of rn

go debate go team yeah debate yeah

I consider myself a lay judge. I would appreciate if speakers can talk slowly with clarity. I consider evidence and impacts as important.

I will evaluate teams on the quality of the arguments actually made, not on their own personal beliefs, and not
on issues they think a particular side should have covered. I will assess the bearing of each argument on the
truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution. Also I tend not give much weightage to value based arguments.

I am an attorney who handles appeals, so I guess you could say that I am a professional debater. I will judge your debate the same way that a judge decides an appeal. I will identify the contentions, evaluate the arguments and evidence presented by both sides in support or in opposition of each contention, and then choose which side made the more persuasive case on each contention. The side that wins the most contentions, wins the debate.

I should note that I strongly disapprove of the practice of spreading (or speaking very, very quickly). The purpose of debate is to exchange ideas. If a debater speaks so quickly that neither the judge nor the opposing party can understand them, we are no longer having a debate. Please speak clearly, so that everyone can follow your arguments.

Parent judge

Utilize off-time roadmaps, they're really helpful to keep track of your arguments (and give points!)

Debaters should also not spread

Please keep interactions with the other team polite and respectful, and try not to talk over each other in cross.

hey! i'm ruhi and i'm a junior at blake in minnesota. i debate on the nat circuit and this is my 3rd year doing pf.

please add me to the email chain blakedocs@googlegroups.com AND ruhikurdikar@gmail.com and label it correctly: Yale R3 Blake CK (1st aff) vs Blake OR (2nd neg)

blake coaches have shaped the way i view debate, so if you have additional questions not answered in this paradigm i agree with most things in these ones: christian vasquez, joshua enebo, shane stafford, eva motolinia, sofia perri, and elizabeth terveen

tl;dr tech>truth, no isms, weigh, collapse, read good ev

anything racist/homophobic/abelist/sexist etc. or any other discriminatory language/behavior will result in an L with lowest possible speaks. a little humor is always appreciated, especially in cross.

i will flow and make my decision based off of my flow. i'll disclose/give a verbal rfd if the tournament allows and if anyone has any questions feel free to ask. if you want me to vote off of something in cross bring it up in a speech- cross is binding if your opponent says it in speech. also you can postround me idrc im happy to defend my decision.

i am pretty expressive, so i suggest looking at me in speeches and in cross. if i look confused or you see me pause flowing and its an arg that u think wins u the round, pls explain it more.

don't excessively signal i will not be swayed by ur disgusted face during ur opps speech when i make a decision lmao

general things i would like to see in round:

-make sure to preflow and use the bathroom before round!

-send speech docs for case and rebuttal. this should have all the ev/rhetoric you read (besides frontlines for 2nd reb) in the speech. if you are paraphrasing, you MUST have the cut cards you paraphrased from also in the doc.

-before starting each speech (besides constructive) please tell me what argument you are starting on and signpost. if the roadmap is over 5 sec long i dont want to hear it. don't say 3-2-1 (blastoff??) before starting lol

-weigh. tell me why your impacts are the most important impacts in the round (magnitude/probability/timeframe etc) and compare them to your opponent's impacts! the earlier weighing comes out the better- i'm a lot more likely to lean towards you in a messy weighing debate if your weighing came out in rebuttal. if there's competing weighing tell me which one to prefer (metaweighing) and frontline your opponents weighing. link-ins and prereqs are super underrated- you can win so many rounds on ridiculous link-ins if your opponent drops it just make sure it is warranted (e.g. don't say war exacerbates climate change, tell me how/why). with that being said, if your opponent makes an obviously dumb link in my threshold for responses won't be very high.

-make sure to extend whatever you want me to vote on in final focus (links/impacts/warrants)- if it's not in summary don't bother saying it in final focus. please please extend warrants- for example dont just say "GPC is bad" tell me why. idc what your author says if you can't actually explain the warranting to me.

-every speech after constructives must answer the speech that came before it. for example, in second rebuttal you must respond to all offense the other team put on your case (as well as respond to their case)

-defense is not sticky UNLESS they don't touch the contention at all in 2nd rebuttal and then go for it in 2nd summary

-i'll gladly evaluate framework if you read it, but please don't read "cost-benefit analysis" framework. it's just a waste of your time, framework is meant to be strategic and frame your opponents out of the debate.

-pls pls collapse (narrow down your arguments) in the back half of the debate! y'all should really only be going for one contention from case, and don't try to extend every response from rebuttal in summary/final focus. choose a couple you think are the strongest and you are winning the most, and explain those+weigh them well. in summary you should probably be collapsing on 2-3 pieces of offense (arguments that give me a reason to vote for you such as case or turns) and in final focus you should probably be collapsing on 1-2 and weighing them really well.

-no new arguments in summary or final focus- the latest new weighing can come is 1st final focus

-compare evidence when you and your opponent's evidence contradicts (ex. postdates, author more qualified, etc.). it's also good to know the methodology of your evidence because if you are asked about it in cross and you don't know it's not a great look. i'll also be persuaded by evidence preference args surrounding paraphrasing (that cut cards are better).

-group responses while frontlining! it is way more efficient and will save you lots of time.

sometimes messy rounds will come down to nitpicky things so here are some clarifications:

warranted cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics

qualified source and author > qualified source only > qualified author only > no qualified author or source

link + impact extension > link with no impact > impact with no link

comparative weighing > weighing that is only about your impact > weighing that is about opponents impact only

evidence:

-evidence is super important- cut cards good, paraphrasing bad. i will not vote against you for paraphrasing but please do not misrepresent your evidence. if your opponents say you are- i will probably call for it. if ur ev is bad ill be mad and if it's really bad i might drop you.

-if your opponents ask you for evidence you must be able to send the fully cut and highlighted card (not just a URL!) to the email chain. if you can't produce it within 1 min i'll strike it from my flow. don't lie and cut ev mid round and then claim to have read it earlier.

-if your opponents call for evidence and you are unable to send it in a timely manner for whatever reason and you tell me to "strike it from my flow" i'll drop you and give you bad speaks- if you introduce ev into round you better be able to provide/defend it.

-christian vasquez's paradigm has a how-to on cutting cards and even has a link to verbatim if you are unsure about what i'm looking for or how to do it! i'm also happy to help you before/after round if you have any questions.

timing/speed:

-time your own prep please and let me and your opponents know how much prep you took/have left after taking some. if i find out you took prep past the 3 min i'll be really annoyed and probably lower your speaks.

-i will time your speeches and stop flowing past 5 seconds over, but pls still time your own and your opponents speeches. do not start reading a new argument if there is only 5 seconds left- i am not going to flow an argument that you start overtime.

-speed is fine as long as you're clear but dont spread blippy paraphrased args- use speed to read more of a card or more in depth args. also slow down for tags/author names so i can flow- i'm not gonna flow off the doc so if i cannot flow you that's your problem. i'll clear you twice before i just stop flowing.

progressive args:

paraphrasing theory- run it. i will never vote for paraphrasing good. i genuinely think paraphrasing is horrible for the activity and am happy to use my ballot to punish teams who do paraphrase. that being said, if you are really losing the shell i won't hack for it and i'll probably just treat a para good shell as terminal defense.

otherwise- disclosure good (with tags/highlighting, the all-cleared formatting is kinda egregious), trigger warnings bad (unless there's super graphic depictions of violence, but idk if you should even be reading that in the first place), and round reports are silly but i suppose they are kind of a norm now.

please do not run friv theory (if you aren't sure about if what you want to run is frivolous it probably is). do not run theory unless you genuinely believe it makes the debate community a better place. if you run friv theory expect 25s and my threshold for responses won't be very high.

IVIs are stupid don't read them in front of me. if there is a real violation, read theory. if you think there is an ev ethics violation, then just end the round and call one. IVIs are just an excuse to read a ton of blippy "round ending" arguments and it will be really hard to get me to vote on one. also recording someone without their consent to "check for clipping" will result in an L25.

introduction of theory arguments should happen in the speech directly following the violation. out of round violations should be introduced in constructive.

RVIs to para or disclo are domeless. i vibe with RVIs: 1) if you're running a ROTB about topical discourse 2) if the theory is obviously friv. i default to reasonability > competing interps

i don't have much experience at all evaluating Ks and i am not familiar with much of the lit, so i wouldn't read complicated ones in front of me. i'm probably okay for survival stuff, security, and cap but go slow and err on the side of overexplanation. if you are running a survival argument, keep in mind that i strongly believe debate is good as a whole and voting someone up solely based on their identity is bad for the activity. idk what the hyperreal is and tbh you probably don't either so don't read these types of arguments just to confuse your opponents and win the round if you cannot actually explain it in english.

i do have experience running/answering topical identity-based ROTBs and frameworks so i am a good person to run these in front of and i enjoy these debates.

speaker points:

i think that speaks are silly and utterly arbitrary, so don't pay that much attention to them. i'll never base speaks on how you sound, what you wear, etc. however, some ways to get higher speaks in front of me are

- send out case/rebuttal docs with cut cards and/or you are disclosed (if you remind me)

- strategic crossfires, getting the opps to make concessions

- weighing in rebuttal

- good vibes/being funny

- say the word cork in speech

hi josh

________________________________________________________________________

Paradigm from 2017 through February 2024.

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

codymorrowtx1@gmail.com

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

Speaker Points

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

27.7 to 28.2 - Average

28.3 to 28.6 - Good job

28.7 to 29.2 - Well above average

29.3 to 29.7 - Great job/ impressive job

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

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

I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourself. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Please, don't steal prep time. I do not consider e-mailing evidence as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.

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

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

GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!

LD June 13, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

As a new parent judge, I haven't formed opinions or preferences yet. The only exception would be that I have trouble understanding rapid speech, and so would prefer a slower presentation.

Hello, debaters. My name is Matthew Neil, and I am an English teacher. For a while now I've also had the privilege of coaching our school's debate team and judging numerous local, state, and national debate tournaments.

As a debate judge, I take pride in helping to shape and facilitate an environment that encourages intellectual growth and critical thinking. What excites me the most about judging is the opportunity to witness firsthand the development of future leaders, advocates, and changemakers.

My love for judging stems from my own experiences as a high school debater. I understand the rigorous mental preparation that goes into each debate, the rush of adrenaline when delivering an argument, and the sense of accomplishment when a point lands successfully.

A debate for me is a chess match of words and ideas. It's a platform where young minds can explore, contest, and refine their worldviews. And it's genuinely inspiring to see the passion and dedication that each of you brings to your arguments.

Remember, my goal as a judge is not to dictate the outcome of the debate but to provide a fair and unbiased assessment of the arguments presented. I believe in clear reasoning, solid evidence, and respectful discourse. I look forward to hearing your ideas and seeing how you navigate the complex world of debate. Good luck to each of you!

I am currently a sophomore at Emory university. I debated public forum at the quarry lane school for four years.

tech > truth

please add me to the email chain - snellian@student.quarrylane.org. Send speech docs before each speech !

I'm fine with speed, but make sure you're clear. Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. Any offense you're going for in final focus should be extended completely (uniqueness, links, impacts) in summary. Cross is binding but doesn't matter unless it's in speech. Please collapse !

Start weighing as early as possible and definitely focus on comparative weighing (both link and impact level if possible), when I'm looking at the arguments, I'll start with the one with the strongest weighing.

Always be respectful towards your opponents. I won't evaluate arguments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. Lastly, debate can be stressful but make sure to have fun :)

Regarding prog arguments, I have little to no experience with Ks (I’ve debated a K maybe once or twice). If you want to read a K, I think it’s super interesting but I probably won’t be able to evaluate it well and am not a great judge for that. I’ve debated/read theory before, and have more experience with it than Ks, but I’m not extremely experienced with it either.

Good luck and feel free to email me before or after the round if you have any questions.

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.

Background

I have experience in just about all types of debate. While some distinctions between formats I see similarities rooted in intentional relationships, education and rhetoric. I do not see the judge as a blank slate. So I have some things that I think, based on my experiences as a debater, social science teacher, coach, parent and program director effect my role as a judge. We all have filters.

Personally, I debated NDT for the University of Houston in the early 80's. Achieving out rounds at major national tournaments and debating at both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. I have coached all debate events and many speech events. My policy teams won St. Marks and Memorial TOC tournaments and enjoyed success nationally. My students were also successful on Texas UIL and local circuits. I have had debate teams, LD debaters, extemp speakers and congress entries placed 1st or 2nd in Texas and have also coached a state oratory champion.

Currently, I consult and do debate on the side from home. I'm 62 years old. Concerns or questions about a judge that age are addressed below. The two biggest concerns are usually handling "speed" and "progressive" arguments. Speed with style and good technique is one thing speed that seems like a stream of consciousness is another. As for what progress is or progressive is, well that depends on your experiences.

I am open to alternative approaches to resolutions but also enjoy frameworks employed in the past. Debating and coaching in Houston and teaching at the UTNIF for a decade definitely shaped my my ability to listen to different types of frameworks - or what the debate is supposed to mean or accomplish. I have coached at so many levels, for many years on different topics - instead of seeing differences I see many similarities in the way arguments are framed evolve. I debated when it was highly questionable to do anything beyond policy debate - even counterplans, much less conditional frameworks, but being from a small squad (in a different info environment - when access to research and evidence was definiteley privileged) we pursued the edge strategies - such as hypothesis testing to level the field. Coaching in policy we ran all range of arguments. Over time shifting to a more critical approach. Once again in response, in part, to the changing information space. On an education topic we went deep all year on Critical Pedagogy and on a criminal justice - Constitutive Criminology. There are very few rules in debate. What policy debate means and what my vote means are for grabs by both teams. I'm not into labels at way to define myself. If I had to pick a term it would be: Critic of Argument

A couple of notes

Speed, unless evolution is really off track, speed can't be any faster, even from when we debated in college. Speed is rarely what set the best debaters apart. However, these are my first NDT rounds this year. (I'm contemplating grad schools in the mountain west for next year) Make sure acronyms, initialisms etc. are clear first before ripping through what will be new information for me. I suggest making sure each of you arguments (CP/K/DA - plan objection if you're old -) have a quick efficient thesis that makes sure I understand your position and its potential in the round before you take off speaking more quickly.

Evidence

I evaluate your proofs. Proof is a broad term - much more than published material.

I consider evidence to be expert testimony. A type of proof. The debater who presents experts to support their claims should lay the predicate - explain why that source is relevant and qualified to be an expert - when they present the evidence. Quotations submitted as evidence with just a publication title or name and date often fall short of this standard. Generally I don't want to call for a card after the round whose author was not qualified when presented in constructives. I will call for evidence on contested points. However, that evidence has been well qualified by the team presenting it and the debaters are usually talking about lines and warrants from the card. It is highly unlikely that I will call for card not qualified and/or not talked about in rebuttals. If a piece of evidence is not qualified in a meaningful way during a debaters speech - it is unlikely I would call for it after the round. I've seen traveling graduate students from England just dismantle top flight policy teams - they had proofs that all knew and accepted often with out some of the "debate tech" norms found in academic policy debate (NDT/CEDA). See the comments below on what matters in rebuttals!

Notes on Education

Spurious "quick claims" claims of a specific educational standard thrown out with out all elements of an argument are problematic. I am a life long educator who has witnessed and evolved with debate. Often teams quick claim Education as a voting issue. As an educator, I often see performance methodology (like only reading names and dates to qualify evidence or "card stacking" reading only the parts of a card that favor you - even if full context sheds a different light OR speed reading through post-modern literature as probably much more important than a debate tech argument) as serious education issues that could be discussed - and much more primary to education - than debate tech one offs.

I find "debate tech" like spreading and some uses of technology in round serve to privilege or tilt the playing field. This doesn't mean to slow to a crawl - fast and efficient - but also accessible to both the other team and the judge. So winning because the affirmative can't respond in depth to 8 off case arguments is not persuasive to me. Be bold - go deep on issues that you think are yours. "Debate Terms of Art" often fall in this category. Language choice should be accessible - even if it means adapting to your opponent as well as your judge.

Evidence often is not enough

Most debates aren't won early - the changing information space has created a lot of equity. But there two things debaters do in my experience in rebuttals that make a difference. After they have strategically collapsed or decided which issue to go for they:

1. They talk authors and specific warrants contained in the evidence - usually contrasting opposing authors and warrants. These warrants are prima facia - they are best when clearly identified - even in the opening speeches.

2. They can tell a narrative - or give examples of the mechanics, warrants, internal links in the card. They can also explain sequences of events - what would happen if I voted for your argument/position or team.

From an educators view - this is the goal of debate.

Counterplans and debate tech

Counterplan "micro theory" has really evolved. That is my term for many variations of counterplans that drive focus away from clash on the topic. Superficial, procedural and timing exceptions or additions counterplans. I actually spent time reviewing two articles on the history of PICs and their evolution prior to writing this. The excessive use of academic debate "Terms of Art" is problematic, sometimes exclusionary. I prefer head on collision in debate - and debaters who figure out how to position themselves for that debate. I prefer the debate come down to clash on field contextual issue as opposed to "side swiping" the topic. Just my preference.

I also find that this type of debate tech functions as a tool of exclusion. The debate should be accesable to your opponents without an overreliance of theory or tech debates. If they are used as time sucks that rubs me the wrong way going to your Ethos as a debater.

I do not and will not vote on or enforce a preround disclosure issue. Settle that before the round starts. Take it over my head if you object. If you ask me to adjudicate that - you might not like the answer.

How we treat each other

This is something that might trigger my voting in way you don't expect. Let's work on accomodating each other and creating safe spaces for academic discourse and the development of positive intentional relationships.

I am a parent judge, with 10 years of experience.

Important:

Please speak clearly, avoid over speed, and explain your points thoroughly.

Online Debate:

For online debates, prefer cameras on and you are fully visible.

Relevant Thoughts:

• Evidence quality is important. Good data and analytics can beat bad cards.
• My experience is policy-heavy, and it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.
• You as the competitor should be clear in your thought while asking questions or answering them.
• In rounds just make sure to tell me where you are going in your speech.
• Speed is fine with me in beginning speeches but make sure your speed doesn't affect the quality of the argument.
• Don't hesitate to ask me any questions.

background: debated for eden prairie high school in minnesota and glenn high school in texas as a PF competitor on the local and national circuits.

tldr: tech over truth. pls pls pls collapse + weigh. idk much theory, so don't run it. ask questions before round. HAVE FUN. it's the reason we do debate.

general

akhil.perla18@gmail.com for the email chain

i will be timing speeches, but i'd encourage y'all to be timing yourselves. i stop flowing after 10 seconds over.

creative arguments are great! i will evaluate pretty much any well-warranted argument.

i REALLY dislike argument dumps in case. constructives with 4+ unwarranted contentions honestly gets away from the spirit of debate. fewer arguments that are well-warranted and have cleanly explained links will be rewarded far more than contention dumps that force opponents to pick and choose what to respond to.

i am not opposed to speed up to the point that it starts outpacing how fast i can write. if you're going too fast for me to flow, i just won't be able to get the warranting down as well.

i don't flow cross, so if you want something from cross to matter when i'm making my decision, make sure to bring it up in an actual speech.

if there's no offense on either side of the flow, i tend to default to the con team.

this hopefully goes without saying, but at the very least frontline turns in second summary.

evidence

don't paraphrase. if you get called out for it, that piece of evidence gets wiped off the flow for me.

especially egregious evidence/misrepresentation will result in an auto-drop.

weighing

weighing guides my ballot -- win the weighing and I look to evaluate that argument first

the earlier that weighing mechanisms are introduced, the more value i give to them when i make a decision.

extensions

i have a relatively high threshold for extensions. if you want warrants to be flowed through, make sure the argument is well frontlined and fleshed out.

speaks

average is a 28. anything above 29 means that the debater combined exceptional delivery with creative and high-quality argumentation. evidence issues drops you to 25 and anything offensive is an auto-20.

misc

well intentioned feedback from my technical judges was the most helpful advice i got as a debater. also, i think debaters are entitled to know why they won or lost a round. i welcome post-rounding and will stay as long (as reasonably possible) after the round as you'd like to answer questions.

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a few open. She/her. Docshare >

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

Ex. Fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. Speech docs make sure this is never an issue, so that's another plug.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Debate for fun

PF Paradigm: I did policy debate in high school and college, which has definitely shaped how I view debate. That being said, I have judged a lot of PF debates the past few years. I am familiar with the norms of PF and will judge accordingly. I will vote for the team that best accesses an impact under the framing I am told to vote for. If your “impact” is economic decline and nothing more, why should I care? Be sure to tell me what will result from voting for your side (stopping structural violence, preventing war, saving how many lives, etc.) I will default to consequentialist framing unless given something else. You need to extend an argument in the summary in order to extend it in the final focus. Unless it is against the norms/rules of the tournament, speak as fast as you want as long as you are clear!

I think that debates are better when more evidence is sent out. Obviously it is up to the debaters, but clash is better when both sides have access to as much evidence as possible. When you send out a card please make sure it is cut, and please do not send a link to an article and ask the judges/other team to "control F" to find your quote. Also, if you mention/extend a card in the summary/final focus, please make sure it is sent out.

If an advocacy like a K with an alternative is read in PF, I will not automatically reject it. However, I am open to "framework" type arguments that tell me to vote down the team for reading an advocacy in PF. If you think it is unfair for advocacies to be in PF, tell me how it harms you as a debater to have to debate it (say you are unprepared which harms the quality of debates, education, etc). I will treat this like any other argument, meaning that the pros and cons of allowing advocacies in PF should be debated and weighed.

Note: A lot of teams in PF have been taking time after the start time of the round to pre-flow or prep. Please don't do this when I am judging—prep ends at start time

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

Note: For events other than policy, scroll to the bottom

Email: Please put me on the email chain — jramrocks17@gmail.com

About me:

· 2 years of NDT-CEDA debate at Liberty University (2020 and 2021 seasons)

· 2x NDT participant and 2x CEDA Double-Octa finalist

· 1 year of coaching policy at Liberty

· 4 years of policy and 3 years of extemp at Prosper High School in Texas

· I was a K debater most of my career but switched to policy for my last year of college debate. I've been on both the K and policy sides of the library and want to see you do what you do best

TLDR: You do you. Tab/flex judges don’t exist as we all have our biases, but I’ll try my best to be “Tab”. I have run and seen all types of debate and am fine in any type of round. Please don't change your strategy based off of my paradigm or what you've heard I prefer. I am tech over truth

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

Argumentative Preferences:

K: K’s are cool on the Aff and Neg. Don’t assume I understand your literature base—I’m most familiar with literature surrounding capitalism, militarism, international relations, sexuality, and to a lesser extent post modernism, blackness, and colonialism, but you should always explain your arguments in depth. I think that in order to win on a K you usually must resolve the links and impacts either through a material alternative or through framing/education/methodology. I will vote on epistemology framing, but there is some truth to "tie links to the plan" so this needs to be debated out

Framework:

· I have experience on both sides and will try my best to remove any bias

· I want to be convinced that I am voting for the best model of debate. At the end of the round, I will weigh how much each side solves for the other's offense and how each side frames their offense

· I strongly dislike stale framework debates where teams read generic blocks and arguments, and where there is no contextualization to the other team’s arguments. If you win a round just because the other team dropped some of your generic blocks, you gained almost no education out of that round and your speaks won’t be great

· I think that it is better for the Neg when they focus on TVAs/switch sides as opposed to focusing on their impacts alone

· I love it when the Neg uses clash/fairness/any impact to turn the Aff and answer their offense

· I will weigh Aff offense and want to hear it contextualized to the Neg's explanation of FW; "USFG bad" is probably not enough. I want to hear how the Aff’s counter interp solves the Neg's offense, and the Neg is better off proving that their model solves a good portion of the Aff

· I lean towards the belief that fairness is an internal link to education or whatever else the Neg is explaining, but if you explain and win why fairness is an impact, I am willing to vote on it

Theory: I think that theory can be good in certain instances, but it can also be unnecessary. Just have a clear interp and violation with voters and don’t go for a ridiculous shell that was obviously meant as a time suck unless it’s dropped or very under-covered. If you go for condo against a team with one conditional advocacy or something ridiculous like that, I will vote for you if you're winning, but you won't be happy with your speaks

Policy Affs: Do what you want, but I think that teams benefit from extending entire advantages in each speech. I like it when the Aff uses its 1AC to debate each off case and uses its advantages to frame the whole debate on each flow

Counter Plans: I can enjoy a good CP debate. I have no problem with multiple CP’s but will vote off of condo if you’re losing it (more than 3 condo is maybe a little sus, but that's up for debate). Answer perms and solvency deficits and explain your net benefit. I've gone for sus process CPs a lot, and I think I have no Aff or Neg bias on theory. I personally believe that judge kick is a good thing, as it upholds the Aff's burden to prove that it is better than the CP and the status quo. Judge kick will be my default, but I will disallow it if the Aff wins that it is bad

Disadvantages: I think strong policy teams use DA’s to turn case (although this is not required) and engage in in-depth impact analysis and framing. The truth level of the DA and quality of your cards is relevant. Be sure to extend your whole link chain in each speech

Impact Turns: I’m cool with them and think that they can be strategic—just don’t double turn yourself (ie don’t read “China war good” on case and a China war impact on a DA). I think the level of truth does matter (ie dedev is better than spark but still questionable), but at the end of the day I will vote on tech and card quality

Topicality: I'm cool with voting off of any interp that you’re winning, as I view T like I view any other argument and won't reject any interp just because I think it is false. I want a clear interp debate. The winning side will win that their model of debate is best, although proving in round abuse (like the Aff no-linking core DA's) will greatly help the Neg. Have a clear interp, violation, and standards that you extend in every speech

Competing Interpretations vs. Reasonability: I default to Competing Interpretations because nowhere else in debate is “we kinda don’t link to this argument” a good answer. Debate is about competing methods and worlds, and I believe that Affs use the reasonability argument to win ballots from judges who don't like T debates. I’ll vote on reasonability if you’re winning tho for sure

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

Random things:

· Speak as fast as you want, just slow down on tags and make sure I can tell when you're reading a tag vs evidence text. Whatever speed you are at be clear as long as you are able :)

· Flashing/emailing probably isn't prep but if you are talking to your partner, typing excessively, writing on your flows, or taking over a minute or two I will count prep

· Please feel free to time yourselves. I can time as well in case you need it for speeches/prep, but please ask

· Open CX is fine unless tournament rules say otherwise

· Please don’t be rude or mean, and don’t discriminate against others or read arguments that discriminate against others

· I refuse to judge any "death good" arguments, mostly because the burden shouldn't be on the other team to ask me to end the round

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

Scale Thing I see judges do:

Policy----------X--------------K

Condo good----X--------------------Condo Bad

Tech--X----------------------Truth

Death good is valid------------------------X No!

Ks of fiat-------------------X-----Fiat always good

Process CPs good-------X-----------------Salty 2A

Non-resolutional procedurals are bad----X--------------------Veganism/Christianity type procedurals

Perms are legitimate X------------------------The 2NR I gave in my first novice round

The above is set in stone--------------------X----I will flow the debate and vote on tech

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

Speaks:

· Speaker points are low key an arbitrary vibe check, but I try to give speaks based off of your speeches, overall strategy, and cross ex

· A 28 to 28.5 is average, and it’ll and go up/down based on your performance throughout the round

· I will adjust how I give speaks based on the tournament. I’ll probably give you higher speaks for your performance at a local than if the exact same round took place at a bid tournament

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

Other Events:

LD: LD is cool! I have some minor experience. I’ll probably judge it like a short policy round. Anything from framework debate to K debate to stock debate is cool and I’ve ran all of that in LD. I’ve heard that alts aren’t that important in LD K debates, but I value them so please explain it. I’ll probably vote based on which side better accesses the winning framework in the round. I hear that LD likes RVIs for some reason, so I'll vote on those if I'm told why

Congress: I did congress a few times in HS and was first alt to Nats my senior year. I want good content but will also value your speaking skills

Speech: I competed in extemp in high school and broke at NSDA in FX, and I enjoy good speeches. I will weigh the content of your speech vs your performance/tone differently based on the specific event

Joe Rankin

Bettendorf High School

jrankin@bettendorf.k12.ia.us

UPDATED: October 4th, 2022

I'm not sure what happened to my previous Paradigm that was posted, but it appears to have been erased/lost. My apologies as I just learned of this at the Simpson Storm tournament (Sat, Oct 1, 2022) this past weekend.

My name is Joe Rankin and I am the head coach at Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf, IA. I have been the head coach at Bettendorf since the 2005-2006 school year. I primarily coach Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Extemporaneous Speaking...however, I am familiar and have coached all NSDA sanctioned speech/debate events over my time at Bettendorf.

In terms of my coaching paradigm, I'd generally consider these the 'highlights:'

1. I prefer topical debate. The resolution was voted on by coaches and students through the NSDA voting process. That's what I want to hear about.
2. I can generally handle 'speed,' but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. I'd rather help you develop skills that you will actually utilize interacting with other human beings outside of this one particular subset of existence - so I'd much prefer a rate that is more akin to real-world applications.
3. You can make whatever arguments you want to make...but I generally haven't voted on many things associating with theory, kritiks (or however you want to misspell the word critique), or other generally non-topical arguments you make in the round. It takes more work for me to believe those types of arguments are true and not a whole lot of work to make me believe those types of arguments are generally false. So, I wouldn't encourage this type of argumentation in front of me.

I figure that is sufficient for now. If you have any questions, I tend to give you that window before the round begins while setting up to judge. If not, please feel free to ask before the round. The end goal of the round for me is a competitive academic environment that is focused on education. I don't mind answering questions that will help all of us improve moving forward.

I am a parent judge, please speak at an understandable pace, and please articulate your words. Discourage Debate jargons. Don't be rude keep it professional, refrain from mocking and other criticizing movements. Present your evidence properly and expand on why it matters. Good luck!

PUBLIC FORUM

I am a sophomore in Millburn High School and have 2 years of experience with debate (PF in middle school, Congress rn). I would consider myself to be a flay judge.

My preferences as a judge are:

I am not tolerant of sexism, homophobia, islamophobia, xenophobia, racism, ableism, etc. I will drop you.

Please do not spread and speak clearly. If I can't flow or understand your arguments, I don't have a reason to vote for you.

Please signpost (tell me where you are on the flow).

NO PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS (Ks, Theory, etc.). Seriously, don't. I most likely will drop you.

I won't vote off anything said in cross-ex unless you tell me too in your speeches though I definitely will be paying attention.

COLLAPSE and make sure that whatever you want me to vote on is clearly explained in summary and final focus. Interact with your opponent's arguments, otherwise the round is boring and I don't have clear places to vote off. Explain why I should vote for you over your opponent and WEIGH.

Second rebuttal must frontline (respond to your opponents' rebuttals).

Defense (refutations) is sticky as long as it is talked about/referenced in summary and final focus (no need to reexplain).

Defense should not just be spammed, basic refutations, actually explain your refutations and WEIGH YOUR TURNS, especially if you bring it up in summary/final focus.

I would like evidence to be shared with me, however I will not evaluate the evidence in my decision unless you tell me too.

Finally, have fun and remember that your intelligence or worth IS NOT determined by your success in this tournament. Enjoy the experience and don't stress about it!

hi! i'm eva and i'm a junior at blake in mn. this is my 3rd year doing nat circuit pf.

before round, start an email chain and add BOTH evaredmond25@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com. label the chain appropriately, ex. Emory R1 Flight 1: Blake OR 1st AFF vs Blake CK 2nd NEG

tldr: standard flow judge, do what you do best and everything should go well, don't do isms

**update for february: i haven't researched or debated the topic, so please define acronyms to make sure i understand

if you have any questions not answered here, i think about debate very similarly to shane stafford, christian vasquez, eva motolinia, joshua enebo, or really any other blake debater so feel free to check their paradigms

evidence exchange:

send full speech docs before speeches. if you do this, your speaks won't go below 28.5. if you elect not to do this, your opponent can take prep while you try to find individual cards.

send word docs, pdf, or at the very worst cards in the body of the chain. locked google docs rly suck, pls don't do that.

make sure to send the cards in the email chain, it's ok if you have rhetoric as well, but at minimum cards should be there.

general preferences:

tech > truth, i'll evaluate what's said in the round and make my decision off of that. the one exception to this is if i do not understand an argument well enough to explain it back to you, i won't vote on it.

come to round preflowed, i love rounds that end quickly

offtime roadmaps are fine but please don't make them lengthy. "aff, neg" or "neg, aff" should suffice in most rounds

extend the arguments you want me to vote on in final focus and summary. make sure to extend every part of the link chain for me. if a part of the link chain has been conceded, i will be more lenient with warrant extensions for that part. however, it will make me happy if you tell me why every part of your argument happens.

collapse! the final focus should be one contention and only a few arguments on the opps case. choose your best arguments, frontline them well, and weigh them well.

weighing is also very important. there are 3 types of impact weighing: magnitude, probability, and timeframe. any other mechanisms you can think of are subsets of those 3. a lot of the time probability weighing is defense that should have been in rebuttal which makes me sad since there are interesting and smart ways to do probability other than new defense. metaweighing is ok, but tbh i think a lot of the time it's very unwarranted, i'd rather you just line by line the weighing debate and win the warrants on each mechanism.

smart link weighing is very impressive and will be rewarded. i love turns case analysis and link ins, but these also tend to be very unwarranted. the best link weighing is rooted in evidence. if there isn't evidence, at the very least have a logical warrant.

frontline everything in 2nd rebuttal. the last time you can read new weighing is 1st ff, but i'll have a lower threshold for responses.

i don't flow cross, but i do think it's binding so if there's a major concession, bring it up in speech.

evidence:

debate is a research activity, and the quality of evidence is very important to me. my ideal debate is rooted in lots of evidence comparison and analysis.

if your evidence is egregiously miscut and it's called out, i will probably drop you.

if you can't send the full card when asked (not a pdf or a link), i'll strike it after 1 minute.

paraphrasing is genuinely a horrifying trend, email me if you need help learning how to cut cards or anything.

speed:

i'm a pretty fast debater, so i understand the utility of speed. however, you have to be clear. if i can't understand what you're saying, i won't evaluate it. i'll clear you once, and if you don't slow down i'll stop flowing.

speed is not an excuse to be inefficient or spam bad responses - it should be used to develop more nuanced arguments.

i won't flow off a doc lol. i'll be fine flowing any fast pf round as long as you slow down on author names and tags.

timing:

time yourselves and your own prep please.

i stop flowing 5 seconds after the speech time ends.

framework:

i'm down to evaluate any framework, as long as it's not cost benefit analysis (huge waste of time)

structural violence frameworks can be done very well, but oftentimes they become teams asserting that sv is underprioritized without explaining why that matters. underprioritization is not itself a warrant for why something should be prioritized. please don't say "their threats are all solved because of traditional policymaking" without reading impact defense or a uniqueness response, this is incredibly lazy debating.

i also really don't like prefiat framing. in order to win prefiat framing, you need to be winning a link on substance. if the discourse you're spreading is proven to be bad, i won't vote to spread said discourse. if you're winning a topical link, you're probably already winning the round and going for prefiat wasted a bunch of your time. personally, i haven't yet seen a coherent warrant for why change spills over to the real world.

i won't evaluate arguments that the opponent can't link in to framework or that you should win because you brought it up first. to clarify, you can read arguments that link ins are a worse method of addressing the framework, but voting for a team just because they introduced framework first implodes the debate space.

theory:

theory rounds are pretty boring to judge and i'd rather not, but if you rly rly want to.....

as referenced above, i think paraphrasing is a horrible trend and am very likely to vote on paraphrasing theory. bracketing can be just as bad, i'm very receptive to bracketing shells.

disclosure is good, open source disclosure is best, and round reports are a good norm. winning disclosure theory while full texting will be an uphill battle.

i will not vote on trigger warning theory unless there is a graphic depiction. trigger warnings have been used to silence marginalized groups and pretty much all of the literature concludes they don't do much.

i default to competing interps over reasonability in all of those scenarios.

i default no rvis. you don't need to be winning rvis to win offense on the theory level, either from a counterinterp or a turn on their interp. nobody knows what rvis are these days :(

if friv theory is read, i will evaluate it under reasonability. it's bad for the debate space, and my role as an educator comes before any obligation i have to avoid intervention. if you are questioning whether your theory is frivolous, err on the side of caution and don't read it.

for the same reason, i'll evaluate ivis under reasonability. ivis are another example of lazy debating. read a shell, read a k, or read an ethics violation.

evidence challenges are stop the round issues, not something that i'll evaluate as a theory debate.

Ks:

for topical ks - i have decent experience with security, cap, and fem ir. i can probably evaluate anything simple. for anything postmodern/high theory, i will evaluate but please overexplain. i am not smart enough to explain most of the words that get thrown around in k rounds.

you need to read a link to the k - either from the topic of your opponent - otherwise the k is just a bunch of fun facts about your conception of the world and not a voting issue.

alts should be specific actions. i think the rules of pf create some tension with the existence of alts/neg fiat generally, and i'll be open to theory arguments against alts.

for non topical ks - i do not like traditional pf identity ks. i won't hack, but i haven't yet seen one be well executed in pf. i don't feel comfortable evaluating callouts. similarly, i have reservations about the ballot being used as a referendum on the debate space. there are a lot of forums for social change in debate, but i haven't seen discourse in round change anything during my time in the event. i'm very receptive to arguments about hollow hope, backlash, solvency deficits, and oppression deficits. i'm also a good judge for T as long as you read definitions in your interp.

tricks:

please don't do this like srsly pls.

speaks:

speaks are pretty arbitrary, but i'll standardize them to the best of my ability.

for good speaks:

1. be funny and don't make the round too awkward. at the same time, know when you're taking it too far and be aware of power dynamics in round.
2. don't paraphrase, disclose, send cards on email chain
3. smart weighing/weighing in rebuttal
4. say cork in speech!

after round:

i'll always disclose and there will always be an rfd available on tab

feel free to post round and ask questions, i think it's good for education and holding me accountable. however, you can't change my decision. stay respectful.

if you have any questions, feel free to email me or dm me on fb (Eva Redmond)

good luck, have fun! the best rounds happen when everyone is chill and funny

My background is 90s policy debate for Vestavia Hills HS & Georgetown University. I'm confident that I can handle aggressive pace and esoteric arguments. However, I demand clarity, appreciate intonation, and I am more likely to vote for arguments that I personally believe are true. Please don't read bad evidence. I might punish you for that. Personally, I have an undeniable preference for justice-based arguments like human rights and economic egalitarianism. However, I aspire to be non-interventionist/tabular as a. You can win just about any argument if you make a compelling case within the debate.

Add me to the chain and send docs: ssaharoy@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge and doing this for last 3 years

I'm bad at flowing so pls don't go too fast

For me clarity is more important than speed

Important Stuff is Bolded

My name is Andrew Shea (he/him). You can call me Judge Shea, Andrew, Fire Lord O’Shea, whatever floats your boat.

I am pursuing a major in history and a minor in international relations at the University of Iowa. I am working towards a phd in transnational labor history and relations.

I have a cat named Haywood after Harry Haywood. He is amazing and cool. Ask and I am happy to show pictures.

My email for contact is: ajhamilton112601@gmail.com

I competed at John F Kennedy High School in CR IA. I was coached by Jesse Meyer who remains a large influence on me today.

I judge mainly LD and PF. I was mostly a K debater and did okay throughout my career. I generally understand most arguments. My paradigm breaks down into prefs/speech paradigm, in-round debate behavior, and in-depth LD/PF prefs. Please ask questions if you have any. I am always looking to improve.

LD Cheat Sheet

1 K

2 Phil

3 Trad* or Policy/LARP

4 Theory/Strike**

5 Tricks/Strike (don’t know enough to competently judge)

*I think trad is a good debate format and can be competitive/clash with circuit debate. I put it higher up to tell trad debaters they can pref me without concern.

**I won’t vote you down because you run theory. I just have a lower threshold for response to theory. For example I don’t think you need to run a counter interp or RVIs to respond but if you do, you should do it well.

Two things of note:

1. I am ok with spreading but ask your opponent beforehand preferably in front of me. If you did not ask (or ignore attempts to find accommodation) and your opponent runs theory/disability arg on why spreading is bad I am more liable (not guaranteed) to drop you. However I'll note I have no "bad" WPM. I think if you have an issue saying "clear" or "speed" is the responsibility of the debater. If you have a problem with their overall speed mention something to your opponent after the speech. TLDR If you both agree to spread great, if you have an issue with spreading: advocate for yourself and work with each other under the best of intentions. All that said I am also less liable to vote for a 2ar spreading theory shell if no objections were raised prior.
2. I am pro Flex Prep but you have to ask before round. I prefer this to avoid someone being denied the opportunity to use it in round. In elims I go with the majority judge view on flex prep.

PF Cheat Sheet

1 Trad PF

2 Critical Args

3Theory/Strike

I am basically fine with anything in PF but theory annoys me. I really prefer normal PF but I won’t mentally check out if you don’t.

See above LD prefs for spreading/flex prep

Speech Judging

I am by no means an experienced speech judge but I have coached the very basics and I did exempt and spontaneous in high school. I like to see confidence, good use of the space in a room, rehearsed body movements (don’t just keep your hands in one position unless that is your character's thing for something such as a HI), and just do your best.

Unless explicitly prohibited by tournament rules let me know if you want to give hand signals for time. I would be happy to do them.

Debater Behavior

Ask and Advocate: Debate should be a friendly and welcoming space. To that end, ask and advocate for yourself. If you have an issue or a question please ask. If you feel harmed in some way or see something that bothers you, advocate for yourself. I am happy to facilitate in any way I can to make debate a better space for all. In no way should gender, disability, or class make you feel unsafe in this space.

Assertive and Polite: It is ok to be determined and assertive in a debate round but never belittle your opponent or be snarky to them. Everyone here is a person first and foremost along with being a student. Debate is a pedagogical game and I find it vastly more useful to educate rather than to belittle someone for not understanding or for making a "bad argument" that said, you should absolutely seek to control a round and narrative. Raised and passionate voices are ok but avoid yelling or taking a dismissive, arrogant tone. Be very cognizant of that difference when debating women/non men debaters, sexism is all too prevalent and unacceptable in the debate space and such dynamics do influence my judging particularly in the way I give speaks.

On Spreading: I am not anti-spreading. While I don't think it is a good norm for debate I do understand that it is the default and if everyone is ok with it I will be too. I prefer that people ask before round because I have met several debaters who have had disabilities that prevented them from spreading. I would like debate to realize spreading should be moved away from but because I don't run a camp or have money I at least want to make the space more accessible to different debaters in lieu of some larger change.

Judge Behavior

As a judge I will: provide you with in-depth feedback and always explain to you why I interpreted something the way I did. I will not always be right and make mistakes but I will do my best to explain my reasoning.

Do everything I can to answer questions or redirect you towards resources who can do it better

Provide a safe environment for debaters as someone in the community who cares and who will listen.

LD Prefs in-depth

Since I mainly judge LD here is more in depth thoughts for those who care to read them:

K debate: I love K debate. My political beliefs lead me to love hearing Parenti, Gramsci, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Losurdo, Fanon, and many others along the communist and decolonial based lines. As such I will be happy when I hear cap bad, china isn’t the devil, palestine will be free, etc. That said I familiar with many other authors and I am generally friendly towards hearing any new arguments and I am happy to learn about anything new.

Phil: I know some but not alot. I would love to learn more and therefore feel free to run anything just explain it well.

Trad: I think it can and should endeavor to be more competitive with circuit debate.

Policy/Larp: I don’t necessarily have a problem with it, sometimes I just find it boring. Honestly I have grown to like it more because I actually do enjoy hearing about the resolution.

Theory: I won’t vote someone down because they run theory but I firmly believe that theory is often used in a way that makes debate poor and ruins the quality of argumentation. I think it harms accessibility and as a result my threshold for response is lower. While I feel like I have a decent grasp on theory debate there is a greater risk of me not fully comprehending your argument as I haven't attempted to immerse myself in the mechanics due to my dislike.

What I look for in a good LD round

Overview: Like a real overview which represents the interactions that happened in the round with a narrative. Challenge yourself to have it be more than a summary of what your case is.

Weighing: Like actual weighing. Extending your impact is great but you need to explain why your impact should be valued more compared to your opponents

1nr Card Drop: I see people spread as fast as possible through their speech and then just extend whatever their opponent did not respond too and think they won the round. I need some weight and explanation of the warrant from arguments to vote on them. When there isn't, my threshold for responding or weighing them is lower than the arguments you developed. Developing arguments is good and makes me value them more than your 17th apriori which has “big” implications in the round because your opponent conceded it.

Truth vs Tech: I'm more tech. Basically that's it.

Tabula Rasa: I'm not. I will not tolerate racist, sexist, ableist, classist behavior. I also have strongly held beliefs of what debate should be to get better. That said if I think such behavior has occured I am more likely to stop the round and refer the issue to tab. What I won't do is vote someone down because your K says they are literally the devil for not being topical. I am more receptive to the argument that the argument is some "-ism" not the person. We are learners here and should educate and build people up.

Judge Intervention: This is a very tricky topic for me. So because in the debate space we generally agree that a judgeshould intervene if some racism, sexism, issue occurs yet however we don't think this when it comes to things like reproducing imperialist talking points. We don't typically weigh the reproduction of these dominant idealogical norms as bad whereas only over racism and sexism is despite the fact that systems like imperialism harm far more people than an indvidual sexist or racist comment. So I think when people say "no judge intervention" that doesn't make alot of sense because we have decided as a community that we won't tolerate some things. So therefore I think a good take to approach this (not the best) is that judge intervention should be approached when the debaters says it is necessary as a top shelf/layer argument and then for the oppenent to argue why it shouldn't be perhaps by arguing their idea of what they want the judge to do is not good. This for example should take place in the debate over the role of the ballot. In terms of judge intervention regarding "why did you weigh x argument y way" generally if I think its close it may simply come down to persuviness, the narrative, or may best guess.

Teach me something: Honestly this goes for debaters, coaches, and other judges. I want to learn and improve and be a positive force in the debate space. I love learning about new theories and concepts. As such it may be helpful to take the time to explain the mechanics of an argument without the internal jargon to maximize education.

PF in-depth prefs

Trad pf vs Circuit pf: It's weird that there is now a difference between trad and circuit/prog PF debate and I am not exactly a fan that its come to this. That said I prefer normal PF rounds over critical arguments as I don't think the format lends itself to progressive.

Theory: See LD prefs for opinions on theory.

Evidence: My evidence standards are a bit higher in PF due to frequent bad paraphrasing. I will likely review cards which are deemed critical in round during prep time. If I find that the card itself is misconstrued I will be annoyed and have a lower threshold for response to the arguments that rely on the card. That said I think there is a difference in making an argument which misconstrues the card rather than the card itself being misconstrued. That's just debate.

That's all folks.

I'm a parent judge, first timer here.

Say clearly and articulate your points well.

Please be polite, slow.

Be respectful.

And have fun!

Hey!

My name is Srinidhi (but you guys can call me Sri!) and I'm a high school PF debater.

A few things to note!

General

- I will be flowing the round. Crossfire will not be included however if you would like a point from cross to be considered please add its your next speech.

- Weighing will play a big part in the decision, so please weigh during your summary speech and your final focus

- Remember to extend all your arguments to your final speech. If you don't restate the arguments again I will consider it dropped and it will be crossed off the flow.

-During cross please try to be respectful the entire time!

- Tech over truth!

Speech's

- Remember to frontline in all your speech.

- As well as no new evidence should be brought up after the second summary and ff.

Any racist, xenophobic, or just downright rude remarks will not only impact debater's speaker score but also the ballet of the round.

Good luck and have fun! :)

The Blake School (Minneapolis, MN) I am the director of debate where I teach communication and coach Public Forum and World Schools. I also coach the USA Development Team and Team USA in World Schools Debate.

Public Forum

Some aspects that are critical for me

1) Be nice and respectful. Try to not talk over people. Share time in crossfire periods. Words matter, think about what you say about other people. Attack their arguments and not the people you debate.

2) Arguments must be extended in each speech. This idea of "sticky defense" and not answering arguments in the second rebuttal doesn't understand how debate works. A debater can only make strategic choices about their speech if they base it on what was said in the speech previous to them.

3) Read evidence. I don't accept paraphrasing -- this is an oral activity. If you are quoting an authority, then quote the authority. A debater should not have to play "wack a mole" to find the evidence you are using poorly. Read a tag and then quote the card, that allows your opponent to figure out if you are accurately quoting the author or over-claiming the evidence.

4) Have your evidence ready. If an opponent asks for a piece of evidence you should be able to produce it in about 60 seconds. At two minutes or so, I'm going to just say the evidence doesn't count in the round because you can't produce it. If I say the card doesn't count then the card doesn't count in the round. If you say you can't produce the card then you risk losing. That is called fabrication to cite evidence and then not be able to produce it. If I ask for a card after the round and you can't produce it, again you risk losing the round. Good evidence practices are critical if this format is to rely on citing authorities.

5) I tend to be a policymaker. If there is no offense against trying a new policy then I suggest we try the new policy as it can't hurt to try. Offense is important for both sides.

6) Use voting issues format in summary and final focus. Learn that this allows a clear story and weighing. A voting issue format includes links, impacts, and weighing and provides clarity to just "our case/their case". You are still doing the voting issues on "their flow" or "our flow".

7) Lead with labels/arguments and NOT authors. Number your arguments. For example, 1) Turn UBI increases wage negotiation -- Jones in 2019 states "quote"

8) Racist, xenophobic, sexist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and other oppressive discourses or examples have no place in debate.

Enjoy the debate and learn from this activity, it is a great one.

My name is Terry, and I have experience in PF Debate from High School.

I don't mind the speed, but please make sure you articulate clearly. (I still prefer the quality of content > quantity)

Make sure you have direct and clear evidence to back up your arguments (I might ask you to check your cards throughout the round)

Always looking for good flowing and sign-posting (Makes it easy and clear to follow)

Lastly, treat everyone in the room with respect and have fun!

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

Post-Emory thoughts:

Honestly, I think debate is in a relatively good space overall. It's usually this time of year that I find myself pessimistic on a few different tracks, but this year I'm incredibly optimistic. But still, a few thoughts as we're moving into championship season:

1. Concepts of fiat need a revisiting in PF. No one believes it to be real, and the call back for it to be illusory as an answer to offensive arguments is not adequate. The distinguishment between "pre" and "post" fiat is relatively unneeded and undeveloped, most of this is being mistaken for a debate about topicality really. In fact, the pre/post debate is rooted in a weird space that policy resolved or at least moved past in the 90s. If non topical offense is your game, why not explore some wikis of prominent college teams that are making these arguments?
2. I cannot stress this enough, the space of post modern argumentation is confusing for me. I can more easily dissect these arguments when constructives are longer than four minutes, but in PF I especially do not have the ability to ascertain as to what the specific advocacy is or why it's good in a competitive setting. I am an idiot and the most I can really talk about my college metaphysics course is a dumb rhyme about Spinoza and Decartes(literally if you are well read on your subject, this should be ample warning as to what I can work through). That being said, criticisms focused on structures of power or the state specifically I can understand and don't need hand holding. Just not anything to do with the French(French speakers like Fanon do not count).
3. Deep below any feelings I have about specific schools of thought or even behavior in round, I do know that debate as an activity is good. That does not mean I am full force just deciding ballots on ceding the political, but rather I need to hear why alternative methods to approaching the competitive event have distinct advantages. There is a huge gulf between somehow creating a more inclusive space and burning that same space to the ground that no team in PF has even begun to explain how to cross or even conceptually begun to explain why it can be overcome.
4. RVIs != offense on a theory shell. No RVIs being unanswered does not mean the opponent cannot go for turns or a comparative debate on the interp vs the counter interp
5. A competing interpretation does not conceptually create another shell.
6. Teams need to signpost better, I will not read from docs and I truly believe that the practice is making everyone worse at line-by-line debate.

For WKU -

The last policy rounds I was in was around 2015 for context. I do err neg on most theory positions though agent counterplans do phase me. Other than that, the big division when it comes to other arguments I don't really have much of a stance on.

Affs at the end of the day I do believe need to show some semblance of change/beneficial action

Debate is good as a whole

Individual actions I don't think I have jurisdiction to act as judge over.

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

This year marks my 14th in the activity, which is wild. I end up spending a lot of my time these days thinking not just about how arguments work, but also considering what I want the activity to look like. Personally, I believe that circuit Public Forum is in a transition period much the same that other events have experienced and the position that both judges and coaches play is more important than ever. That being said, I do think both groups need to remember that their years in high school are over now and that their role in the activity, both in and out of round, is as an educator first. If this is anyway controversial to you, I’d kindly ask you to re-examine why you are here.

Yes, this activity is a game, but your behavior and the way in which you participate in it have effects that will outlast your time in it. You should not only treat the people in this activity with the same levels of respect that you would want for yourself, but you should also consider the ways through which you’ve chosen in-round strategies, articulation of those strategies, and how the ways in which you conduct yourself out of round can be thought of as positive or negative. Just because something is easy and might result in competitive success does not make it right.

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

1. You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.

2. The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.

3. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.

4. Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.

5. Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

IVIs

These are hands down the worst thing that PF debate has come up with. If something in round arises to the issue of student safety, then I hope(and maybe this is misplaced) that a judge would intervene prior to a debater saying “do something.” If something is just a dumb argument, or a dumb way to have an argument be developed, then it’s either a theory issue or a competitor needs to get better at making an argument against it.

The idea that these one-off sentences somehow protect students or make the activity more aware of issues is insane. Most things I’ve heard called an IVI are misconstruing what a student has said, are a rules violation that need to be determined by tab, or are just an incomplete argument.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a pomo tradition/understanding. Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are okay(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

Hi, I'm Prashant. I'm a lay judge, and I judge because of my son. I have judged PF for 1 tournament.

What I will vote off:

I will vote off arguments that have strong links and aren't easily refuted and have big impacts. The main thing to do for me will be to weigh impacts, such as probability, timeframe, and magnitude because that's how you will win.

Resolution and speech:

I will know a bit about the resolution and some arguments, but make your speech like I know nothing about the topic. Include important and confusing definitions at the start of your speech as well. Please don't go too fast, as I will not be able to understand.

What I expect:

There should be no bullying, racism, or homophobia, at any time of the debate. Please be nice to your opponent as I will keep track of speaker points.

Speaker points:

Speaker points will be mainly based on your speed, how much you interrupt, and your language itself.

Theory:

If you want to do theory, please clearly explain what violation your opponent has made, why that is a problem, and some proof. I will probably not be going on theory arguments unless they really have impacted the debate and its outcome.

Other:

If your opponent drops an argument or brings something new up in a speech that they should not, please inform me as I will not keep track of it.

hi.

im prisha and i've been doing PF for about 4 years now

you can speak fast if you'd like but please keep it in moderation. its not that cool to speak fast anyway

FOR PF:

add me to the email chain for cards: prishavora@gmail.com

please please please weigh and extend your arguments or else I cannot vote for them

things that will get you 30 speaks (your speeches also have to good)

• make a reference to formula 1 in any speech
• flow with a sharpie

things I don't tolerate: just like all other judges, under any circumstances do not be racist, sexist, etc.

please DONT

• dont do offtime roadmaps
• dont spend a crazy amount of time sending cards

just a heads up I do not flow cross but I do listen and will note if anything very major happens like if someone contradicts their own argument. also I do like heated crossfire but please be respectful. push yourself to ask questions that point out flaws in your opponents case. don't ask questions that don't help the debate or move it forward.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me why you win the debate and why your opponents don't or else you give me more of a decision to make which might not favor you at the end of the day.

if you have any question about my reason for decision or if you want any personal feedback please ask during round, but in any case if anything comes up after the rounds you can email me @: prishavora@gmail.com

I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and be clear.

As a Flay judge, I haven't formed preferences yet and try to stay open-minded on all debate styles. The only exception would be that I do not like spreading.

Dowling Catholic 2020

University of Kentucky 2024

Do what you do best.

I care about responsiveness more than anything else. Don't just shotgun warrants/restate arguments, listen to what your opponent says, apply your warrants to what they are saying, and explain why your arguments subsume theirs.

Line by line is the most important part of debate for me.

I try to be more deterministic than probabilistic when evaluating arguments. Strong comparative analysis and argument resolution can turn 'risks' of things into decisive yes/no questions for one team.

Add me to the chain (weinhardtdash@gmail.com) however I try to look at speech docs as little as possible. I think the increasing card-docification of debate is an unhealthy trend. The value of cutting really good cards should be that you can explain and apply them advantageously and access a higher standard for ev comparison, as such, the purpose of me having access to the doc should be to verify if what you're saying your ev says is true in the event the other team disputes it, not to assess the quality of the cards in the abstract. This is also why slowing down and being clear helps since If I flow your arguments from hearing them first I feel less interventionist when granting you their weight.

Slow down for arguments that have a really dense concept-to-word ratio like T and theory.

I'm cool with inserting rehighlightings as long as you actually explain in depth what the rehighlighting says/why it matters rather than just exploiting it as a method to read cards faster - if this turns into a moral hazard for one team the other should call it out.

CP competition admittedly isn't my strong suit.

lesser stylistic things -

Pick your battles, especially in CX. Chances are, not every word that comes out of your opponents mouth is an F tier trash argument. I get that having conviction and passion is important, but sometimes knowing when to give certain opposing arguments a respectful level of credence can convey nuance and demonstrate to me that you're smart enough to be cognizant of the substantive difference between certain arguments in the round.

numbering arguments is always a plus.

I like when tags have the card's warrants in them.

PF - in all honesty I will probably judge this like a policy round, so most of the stuff above applies. if you're responsive and focus on developing less arguments more in depth and with more warrants you should be good.

LD - tricks suck. please don't pref me if this is your style.

Background

Director of Speech & Debate at Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan. Founder and Director of the Institute for Speech and Debate (ISD). Formerly worked/coached at Hawken School, Charlotte Latin School, Delbarton School, The Harker School, Lake Highland Prep, Desert Vista High School, and a few others.

Updated for Online Debate

I coach in Taipei, Taiwan. Online tournaments are most often on US timezones - but we are still competing/judging. That means that when I'm judging you, it is the middle of the night here. I am doing the best I can to adjust my sleep schedule (and that of my students) - but I'm likely still going to be tired. Clarity is going to be vital. Complicated link stories, etc. are likely a quick way to lose my ballot. Be clear. Tell a compelling story. Don't overcomplicate the debate. That's the best way to win my ballot at 3am - and always really. But especially at 3am.

williamsc@tas.tw is the best email for the evidence email chain.

Paradigm

You can ask me specific questions if you have them...but my paradigm is pretty simple - answer these three questions in the round - and answer them better than your opponent, and you're going to win my ballot:

1. Where am I voting?

2. How can I vote for you there?

3. Why am I voting there and not somewhere else?

I'm not going to do work for you. Don't try to go for everything. Make sure you weigh. Both sides are going to be winning some sort of argument - you're going to need to tell me why what you're winning is more important and enough to win my ballot.

If you are racist, homophobic, nativist, sexist, transphobic, or pretty much any version of "ist" in the round - I will drop you. There's no place for any of that in debate. Debate should be as safe of a space as possible. Competition inherently prevents debate from being a 100% safe space, but if you intentionally make debate unsafe for others, I will drop you. Period.

One suggestion I have for folks is to embrace the use of y'all. All too often, words like "guys" are used to refer to large groups of people that are quite diverse. Pay attention to pronouns (and enter yours on Tabroom!), and be mindful of the language you use, even in casual references.

I am very very very very unlikely to vote for theory. I don't think PF is the best place for it and unfortunately, I don't think it has been used in the best ways in PF so far. Also, I am skeptical of critical arguments. If they link to the resolution, fantastic - but I don't think pre-fiat is something that belongs in PF. If you plan on running arguments like that, it might be worth asking me more about my preferences first - or striking me.

I flow, but you should consider me a lay-judge. Win with your arguments and your logic, not debate tactics. In PF rounds, please do not impact your arguments out to 'human extinction.' I do not believe this is a realistic consequence of any of the topics debated in PF. 

I also do not allow off-time roadmaps. I really like roadmaps and signposting, but you need to do it within the timeframe of your speech.

Hi, I'm Zihan Yuan (or you can call me Angela). I have been debating since 2020 and I've attended many international PF, WSDC, and BP competitions. Feel free to ask me for feedback via email (zihan.yuan2014@gmail.com)!

Here are some preferences (?) or things I like and dislike about debaters' debating style.

1. Please have a clear structure for your speeches, it makes my life a lot easier!!
2. I look for mechanism or explanations for every piece of evidence, because if you throw me a card that I do not understand, I am probably not going to buy this evidence (even if you brought this up for a thousand times in your speech..)
3. Please be respectful to your opponents (even though they might be aggressive.. but it's better to be polite) and don't just be like "you would've noticed this if YOU LISTENED TO MY XX SPEECH" or shouting over them during crossfires

The most important thing about debate competitions is just to have fun, it's ok to be not as good as others, but I wish you all the best of luck and I hope you enjoy this competition!

I am a parent judge and this is my first time judging. Please speak at slower pace and articulate clearly.

Hello!

I am a parent/lay judge who is new to judging.

If I am judging you don't fret! We are all here to have fun.

A few notes about me:

• Please don't use any jargon
• Don't spread
• Don't assume that I understand the topic (please explain and warrant your arguments)
• Time yourselves (please point out if your opponents were overtime)
• Be respectful to your opponents