Background: I am a former PF debater and current PF coach at Phillipsburg High School. I have over a decade of experience in all debate and speech events.

PF Paradigm --

Email Chains: I don't want to be involved in the email/evidence chains. I trust you all to present/use your evidence fairly and accurately. If there is a lot of back-and-forth on specific evidence throughout the whole round, I might call for it after the round, especially if it will greatly impact my decision.

Progressive Debate: I am a traditional PF debate judge who focuses majorly on clash, substantial weighing, and topical arguments. I am not a fan or very familiar with progressive debate so please no theory/k’s and impacts out to nuclear war/extinction. If that is what you want to run you probably won't get picked up by me. When it comes to tech over truth I lean towards truth, use your best judgment, I think logic is incredibly important in PF. Just because it is on the flow doesn’t mean it is absolutely true. Links should be explicit don’t just say impact terrorism or nuclear war, I want to see logical link chains and impacts.

Speed: When it comes to speed I can handle a little bit but no spreading in PF, please. If you want to send a speech doc then you are probably going to speak too fast and I am not going to read it. Present your case articulately and clearly, PF is not policy or LD.

Weighing: Comparative weighing and good impacts are super important to me. Also, be super explicit, don't just say things like "we win off magnitude and probability" tell me exactly what your impacts are "we win on magnitude because we help 327 million more residents blah blah.." again please just be explicit. When it comes to weighing probability is very important to me. I will almost never outweigh on a low probability huge magnitude impact i.e. nuclear war/extinction.

I value clear PF debate: good frameworks from the start of the debate, impact-driven debates, and good weighing.

Other notes:

• Funnel down/collapse – I don’t want the summary to just be a second rebuttal. Also if you are listing 10+ responses and doing line-by-line in the summaries then you aren’t prioritizing. Tech debate in PF has been focusing too much on quantity and not quality – 10 blippy responses that don’t have a logical basis are not better than 2 sound logical responses with good warranting.
• Provide me a narrative and an advocacy, it is not the team with the most cards and most responses that wins, it is the team that narrows the debate down to the major areas of clash and provides me a better worldview of either the AFF or NEG.
• Please spell things out clearly: links, turns, especially extensions ex: Don't just say "Extend Connor 22" say "Extend Connor 22 which says a 3% increase blah blah..." Being more explicit is always better.
• Signposting is important, please please please do it. I don't like messy debates and I want to know exactly what you are responding to.
• I don't flow CX but if a good point is made and you bring it back up in speech I will listen. Also be respectful in CX.
• If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. I can and will drop you.

LD Paradigm:

I would also identify as a traditional LD judge who is very open to well-thought-out and engaging arguments. My background is in PF and I tend to only judge LD on the traditional circuit. I will evaluate the round in the best way you present to me and I really appreciate strong values, VC, and FRs in the round. When it comes to things like kritiks and other super tech LD, I will evaluate to the best of my ability and I think that if they are well done and add to the debate in a substantive way that is fine. I don't love theory debates because I don’t really understand super tech LD so you probably won’t win on that with me as the judge. One other thing is that I do look toward more realistic impacts bc of my PF background. Impact calc is very important but if there are massive unrealistic logical jumps I am not going to buy it i.e. impacting on nuclear war/extinction in a round concerning animal rights. Lastly, when it comes to speed, I can handle a little bit of it but I prefer slower cases so I can more thoroughly flow and pay attention better.

I like to flow every debate I watch to make sure the burden of rejoinder is clearly identifiable, but I will not flow a dropped argument without being told. You should be flowing as well. If it is not CX, then I don't want you to spread. I don't mind speaking fast but I want to really hear your arguments and have time for you to persuade me.

Kindness and tone go a long way. If you are belittling someone else it does not help to prove your point. There is a difference between being assertive and flat-out demeaning.

In Congress, I am not a fan of rehash - I want to hear rebuttals and debate, not a new speech that doesn't address what the aff and neg speakers have brought to the chamber. I think it is completely appropriate to respond in your speeches to arguments by referencing the name of the representative/senator as long as you are tasteful. It helps me keep up with the round.

How you treat your PO and your attitude towards them also go into judging you as a competitor. If you have problems, you have every right to call a point of order, but being snide and hostile makes you look weak.

In IPDA, the resolution is paramount. You must show, using the weighing mechanism, how your case and arguments outweigh your opponents. In questioning, please refrain from dismissing each other or being overtly aggressive. Remember I am flowing but you have to direct my attention and give me a road map.

I have not judged CX in ages. But many moons ago, I was a CXer and I can flow. I don't perceive that I will be judging CX at any point.

As for Forensics events go - I was also a Forensics kid and have been a Theatre Director, Dancer and Interper for over 29 years. I am looking for solid real performances where the intent is routed in thought. I do not like when emotion is faked or pushed. Please perform from a place of honesty. All movement should be motivated and character driven. Variety and the ability to demonstrate clear distinct characters is essential. In OO, Extemp or Info - These are Speech events. Sometimes performers add more interp friendly content into their performances. This is where I am quite stern. There is a fine line between performing and speaking, please remember I enjoy the fact that these are SPEECH events. You are actually speaking to the audience, not performing for us. Remember that.

- Be confident in round

- Be respectful of your opponents

- Please speak slow and clear

I am a parent judge and truth > tech.

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

World Schools Debate is different than other traditional forms of debate. WSD is conversational and based on impact. Therefore, I don't base my decision on expectations I have for other events.

Here is what I look for in a winning team:

• Arguments include consequences and their impacts.
• Arguments are well-explained.
• Arguments are unique.
• Debaters are respectful regardless of strategy.
• Speakers are clear and organized.

Each round is unique, so I cannot identify every factor for winning, but I will be clear in my reasoning for decision.

Hi! Here are my LD, PF, and Congress paradigms.

Email: carteree23@gmail.com

Debate experience/about me: I'm currently an English teacher in Philly but I'm heading to law school this fall. I spent seven years as an assistant coach for Phillipsburg HS in NJ where I coached the Congress program. I am on hiatus from coaching this year but I'm still judging a little bit-- not nearly as much as in previous years though. When I competed back in the day, I did mostly LD + sometimes Congress in Maine from 2010-2014, and did NFA-LD + a tiny tiny bit of speech at Lafayette College until 2016.

Drexel Law '27, Penn GSE '21 (MS.Ed), Lafayette '18 (BA)

----

LD

The short version: My background is pretty varied so I'm good with just about any arguments in round. I'm pretty tab; tech > truth; I want you to run whatever you think your best strategy is. A couple of specific preferences are outlined below.

Speed: I'm good with anything! If you're spreading just put me on the email chain.

DAs: I like DAs and enjoy policymaking debates in general but I am a little old school in that I don't really like when they have wild link chains and impacts just for the sake of outweighing on magnitude. I'm not gonna drop you for it but I think there are always better arguments out there.

T/Theory: Please save it for instances of legit abuse. I can keep up but there are definitely way better theory judges than me out there so keep that in mind.

Traditional: I competed on a small local circuit in high school and am always good for this type of round. Please weigh & give me voters!

Other stuff (CPs, Ks, aff ground): This is where the overarching "run whatever" ethos truly kicks in, though you should be mindful that I am getting very old and need you to err on the side of over-explaining anything new and hip. I love a good CP; PICs are fine, and I don't really buy condo bad. I was not a K debater when I competed but I've come to enjoy them a lot-- I am familiar with the basics in terms of lit and just make sure to explain it well. Plan affs? Absolutely yes. Performance affs? I think they're super cool. Just tell me where to vote.

And finally: have fun! Bring a sense of humor and the collegiality that makes debate such a special activity. I'll never, ever, ever drop you or even change your speaker points just for being an "aggressive" speaker, but please use your best judgment re: strat and speaking style-- i.e. if you're a varsity circuit debater hitting a novice, it's not the time for your wildest K at top speed, and that is something I'm willing to drop your speaks for.

You can ask me any further questions about my paradigm before the round.

---

PF

A lot of my PF thoughts are the same as LD so this will be very short (tl;dr -- run your best strategy, extend/weigh/give me voters, and I'll vote on the flow)! I do think it should be a different event with different conventions and too much progressive argumentation is probably not great for the overall direction of PF, but I won't drop you for it.

Also, I judge a fair amount but I've never coached PF and I am also getting old so I definitely don't have as much topic knowledge as you. Please err on the side of explaining acronyms/stock arguments/etc.

---

Congress

I did Congress as my second event in high school and it's what I primarily coached. I am a pretty frequent parli at NJ, PA, and national circuit tournaments.

I'm a flow judge and my #1 priority is the content of your speeches. While your speaking style and delivery is an important part of the overall package and I’ll mention it on ballots, it's called congressional debate for a reason, and I'll always rank a less polished speaker with better content higher than somebody who's a great orator but isn't advancing the debate. This may make me different than judges from a speech background, and that might reflect in my ranks-- but it's why we have multiple judges with different perspectives, and why it's so important to be well-rounded as a competitor.

I love a good first aff but they should follow a problem/solution structure. If you are speaking past the first aff I need to see great refutation and your arguments need to explicitly provide something new to the debate; don't rehash. Humanizing your impacts and explicitly weighing them is the quickest way to my ranks.

I don't have terribly strong opinions re: the PO-- just be fair, knowledgeable, and efficient and you'll rank.

Hello,

My name is Praise Chidi-Umeh. I am a student at the University of Texas at Dallas and I'm excited to hear whatever you have prepared for me!

I like to perceive myself as a "chill" judge. I specialized in PF and mostly LD when I was in high school, so you might have an idea as to why I don't consider myself strict. I do not have complicated rules per se because I believe debate is fun, and we should have the freedom to argue what we want. When it comes down to judging, I tend to favor the competitor with a better argument, better strategy, and better delivery.

Paradigm:-

1. If anything problematic or controversial is addressed disrespectfully, I will auto-drop and walk out.
2. Please use your time wisely!! I do time every round with my phone on silent, and deduct speaker points for competitors who go overboard. I do not feel obligated to tell you when you're overtime because everybody should know how much time they have (if you don't, check with me before we start), and I expect you to time yourself as well. ( I don't mind if you use your watch, phone, or a digital timer.)
3. Tech>Truth.
4. Be Polite at all times, and No interruptions. I know sometimes arguments can get heated (trust me I've been there) but try to minimize speaking over each other all the time.
5. I do not enjoy spreading At All, so please DON'T do it. Speak at a medium pace, and enunciate so I as your judge can better understand you. If you start spreading, I will stop judging.
6. Avoid Source Wars!!!!

One more thing I should mention again is that I judge by the flow. I love to think that I am an avid listener, so if I stop listening and writing, you might want to check what you are doing incorrectly. (In most cases... the problem is speaking way too fast.)

I am always open to constructive criticism as a debater and a local judge, so please free to email me at chidiumehpraisegod@gmail.com

If you have any further questions, you can always ask me after a round or email me at the same address linked above.

Best of Luck,

Praise C. :)

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

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

2024-5 rounds (as of 3/30): 82

Aff winning percentage: .537

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OVERVIEW

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

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

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

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took 71 minutes and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

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

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

That said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. You should cite authors by name. "Harvard," as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Harvard matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about nuclear energy policy to "Harvard." "According to Professor Bunn of Harvard" (he is Harvard's expert on the intersection between nuclear energy and national security) shouldn't be too hard. The latest wreck I had to hear in this regard was "according to California State University." Given that there are 23 Cal State campuses, that gives me no way even to figure out where your author works. Certainly "according to Professor Guo of Cal State Bakersfield" (he's a topic expert too) is not too hard for you to spit out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking For:

-Consistent arguments/logic (do the arguments you use have consistent logic with others you use? Are you arguments cohesive?)

-Thoughtful research/well-chosen examples (not as many examples as one can think of, just your best/strongest)

-Civil tone/respect between debaters/good sportsmanship

-Limited amount of logical fallacies (goes back to first point, but figured I'd include it; if you can avoid them altogether this is preferable)

-Good/relevant crossfire questions and responses (also keeping consistent with your team's overall logic/argument)

-Weigh your arguments/impacts in the second round! (This helps me frame how I'm meant to think about your evidence and strengthens your view)

Not Looking For:

-"Spreading" or any "speed" debating (I am not specifically trained in this style of debate, nor do I find it beneficial in the long-run; watch your speed––it's just as important that your judge/audience can fully parse/absorb your arguments/info as it is to fit every piece of information in)

-Redundant/repetitive arguments or contradictions in your own information/logic (ties into the above points on having consistency and well-thought-out examples)

-"Dancing around" the question (particularly noticeable in crossfire exchanges; there is no shame in admitting to not knowing something/needing more research to be done on a given question; you're not running for high office so no need to circumvent direct/clear answers to things)

Hey cool cats!

If you use any type of theory, I will drop you, even if the other side may not win as many points. Theory is inequitable and isn't real debate.

If you are condescending or bigoted, I will eviscerate you.

Please speak at a human pace. You may be a robot, but I am not... yet.

Use real sources and cite your evidence. I do not endorse plagiarism... even if that's what you rely on to pass AP English.

Fabricating evidence is dumb, don't do it... even if the mainstream media does.

Weighing is important. Don't make it my job to weigh you... I'm not your doctor.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE use a balance of logic and evidence, 

Cross is not the time to give another speech. Let's keep this train movin'...

And finally, for the love that is all good and holy, just have some fun. You are in high school this one round will not matter two weeks from now! Seriously, if you can't have fun, then maybe it's time to reevaluate your life.

All arguments should be supported by evidence, I will prefer evidence over "logic"

I can understand faster speaking, but I do prefer slower more concise speaking

If you run terminal impacts, the links must be strong and direct

I dislike off timer road maps, please do not use them when I am judging your round

(don't even try to run theory this guy will not understand it) - his son

hey! i'm katheryne. 3yo, junior at uchicago, assistant coach at taipei american school, and lead coach at national debate club.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.com and katheryne@cdadebate.com to the chain.

if you're looking for coaching or interested in national circuit debate from a school without a robust program, check out national debate club! please feel free to ask me/email me about it at the email above if you have any questions!

tl;dr: good judge for substance, pretty good judge for k, mid judge for theory, bad judge for anything else. past serious in round abuse (meaning discrimination) everything in this paradigm is up for debate and justifications about why i should/should not judge this way. debate is competitive but be kind. i change my paradigm a lot, please ask me questions if you have them.

if you have a question about whether i will like evaluating an argument simply ask me

** what can i go for in front of you?

substance: 1
k neg (k w/ topic link): 2
soft left: 3
theory: 3
k aff (non-t k): 3/4
IVI: 4/5
tricks: strike

in divisions rather than varsity ask permission from your opponents before reading anything but substance, if you don't i'll be super sympathetic to "what even is this/i can't respond to this"

** substance/general (applies to all types of arguments!):

1. pretty standard tech judge. i start with weighing to determine highest level of offense, then determine best link in.

2. i love good defense, but you gotta implicate it properly for me to care. a defensive argument can either be terminal (if you implicate D as terminal, i will eval it as such), or it can be mitigatory. unimplicated defense is automatically mitigatory. mitigatory defense should be implicated as weighing. feel free to ask qs about this if you have them.

3. carded + warranted > warranted analytic w/ no card > carded claim w/ no warrant. i love smart analytics.

4. warrants are very important to me. every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need warrants in link ext to be properly extended.

5. extensions of all types are important to me. if your extension has no internal link or no impact is extended i will notice. i do not generally autodrop in an otherwise competitive round for crappy extensions, but i will do so if the opponents point them out. consistency in the backhalf is important to me. if your responses are shifty between summary and FF, they may as well not exist on my flow and my decision will reflect that even if the opponents don't call it out. this includes changing the warrant under the same cardname.

6. respond to args in next speech, nothing is sticky.

7. all competing claims must be compared in some manner or i will, by definition, either have to intervene or ignore them. this means: competing pieces of evidence, links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc.

8. i like less, better developed and implicated arguments than a bunch of spammed poorly implicated ones. narrative is a good skill no matter what level you're debating at. EDIT: i have judged a lot of rounds recently where there is a noticeable tradeoff between how much offense teams go for and how well it's won. it is easier to win my ballot by going for no more than two offensive arguments in the FF and winning them well.EDIT EDIT: IT DOES NOT IMPRESS ME WHEN YOU FRONTLINE YOUR FOUR CONTENTIONS IN ONE MINUTE IN 2ND REBUTTAL. PLZ WARRANT. PLZ WIN YOUR OFFENSE.

9. if no offense i presume neg. if a ton of floating offense is won and isn't compared, i will try as best i can to resolve the round without intervening, and presume neg if there is truly no way.

10. speed is fine, i have never met a PF round i could not flow if there 1. are docs 2. is clarity and 3. is signposting. i will clear you once, past that you're on your own. if you are not a clear speaker, you need to slow down in front of me.

11. i won't auto-drop on evidence ethics violations if i notice them without you telling me to. this is intervention. in egregious cases i'll tank speaks. there are levels of evidence problems. if you just want me to cross something off of my flow, tell me to read it + cross it off. if there’s a serious and persistent power tagging/misrepresentation problem, that’s a voting issue, give me warrants why & i will likely vote on it. formal challenges are a waste of a debate, but of course i will evaluate them if levied.opportunistically levied challenges pmo. if there’s a challenge, and your intention is to call it, do it immediately after abuse.

12. i don't mind if you postround, i take a long time to make decisions because i write long RFDs and think about each part of the round before voting (even if the decision is very simple i'll write about each argument extended through FF on my ballot). but i am also human and my tolerance for disrespect is low, so be polite.

** theory:

i am so bored of judging disclosure debates. i get that sometimes it’s the best path to the ballot and i can’t fault you for it, but your speaks are capped at 28 if you read disclo in front of me in prelims. elims - do what you will for the panel.

1. flexible preferences: default CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. less flexible preferences: theory immediately after abuse, prefer shell format to paragraph, text over spirit of interp, won't vote on out of round abuse, won't vote on ad homs, much more hesitant to vote on out of round impacts than in round impacts.

2. pf theory debates are complicated by the fact that none of us agree on what the above words mean. to me: RVIs do not apply to arguments which garner independent offense. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. which means that i will vote on an OCI even if no RVIs is won but i will not vote on a defensive CI if no RVIs is won.if your CI is an OCI, tell me. if you think their CI is a DCI, tell me.

3. i am very sympathetic to this, but ultimately "idk how to deal w/ theory" isn't a workable response in varsity tournaments. i will give a long RFD explaining what happened and how you could have responded, but i won't ever down a varsity team for reading theory on face.

4. layering arguments are crucial when there are several offs. even when there is only one off, i need the DTD + theory uplayers weighing extended through final to vote on it.

5. unverifiable claims like “our coach doesn’t let us meet the interp” are very difficult for me to vote on. you either need to produce evidence in some manner, or find a different way to engage.

6. the "jargon as extension of implied warrant" problem in pf is especially bad in theory debates, which is probably why i dislike them so much. the two words "norm setting" in the ff are not enough to justify a ballot for me, do more.

7. my personal leanings: OS disclosure is good, i care very little about the rest of these random disclosure interps. paraphrasing is bad, hard to defend as an academic practice. i cannot be bothered to pretend i care about author quals. that being said i think there's very little relationship between what i personally care about and will vote for in a debate round,there is no interp i will on face hack against/i think for me to deem certain interpretations "frivolous" based on my personal opinions would be arbitrary & interventionist.

** k neg (w/ topic link):

when done well, these are some of my favorite debates and i will defend their educational value (yes, even in PF) to the grave. when done poorly, these are hands down my least favorite debates. do not assume i will hack for a poorly read K, or give you good speaks.

1. i prefer really specific link debates. omission, for example, is not a good link. vague gestures at their model/narrative/manner of thinking are not good links. often, the problem is not the argument itself, just the lack of specificity.i dislike you link you lose arguments, this constitutes "k debate done poorly" to me. clash is important and methods testing kritiks is what makes a good k debate. as the team who introduced the kritik you should defend the kritik and aim to win on the k sheet.

2. the difficulty with alts in PF is the biggest incompatibility between the argument and format. some alts are just straight up CPs, i am sympathetic to procedural arguments about that not being allowed, i am open to defenses of that practice as well. i am warming up on reject alts if the rest of your advocacy is very specific, and there's good cohesion between rejection and your framing. i am personally skeptical of discourse shapes reality arguments but will of course vote for them if they are won.

3. i am open to basically any way to see my ballot (prioritization of X, worlds comparison, some obligation as an educator/judge, etc) i am equally open to the idea that asking me to use my ballot in certain ways probably opens up ground for T arguments. that being said, my inclination is against deleting 4 minutes of aff (first speaking) ground, i want to weigh the case, i am easily persuaded by arguments that tell me to do so. winning K turns case = easiest way to my ballot w/ the K.

4. going for framework, DAs on alt solvency, link D, and perms is the most impressive method of engagement to me in pf. doing this well is usually a 30 and the W.

5. do not read a paraphrased k in front of me. disclose the k.

** k aff (non-t):

i understand these arguments probably above average amongst pf tech judges, and have a lot of experience reading and judging them, but i honestly don't like them very much. that being said i'll eval anything and vote for anything that's won.

1. you need to be really convincing about why it is educational not to debate the topic, i think T decently read is quite convincing. i do not think T is violent but i'll eval it. won't hack for T, will vote for k aff if T is beat, but if T is competently defended i generally think it is convincing.

2. need good explanation of importance of the ballot. will not vote on these args if i do not understand why i am meant to do so.

3. if you're hitting a K aff, do something better than "but this is PF." i vote for T and cap against k affs easily. do that instead. creative methods of engagement are also great, but i really will just vote for T.

4. i generally do not think identity positions are immune from disclosure arguments. i understand arguments about outing and will flow them. but i am easily convinced that disclosure is still important. obviously evidence and paraphrasing norms are dependent on the style/type of evidence used, use best practices and be ready to defend them.

5. i don't personally think pf speeches are long enough to do any justice to ontological claims about the genesis of existent societal structures (settler colonialism, anti-blackness, etc), but if you think you can prove me wrong go wild.

I debated for 4 years (PF and LD) in Alabama. You can pretty much do whatever you want as long as it's not unethical, but here are a few specific things I like:

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to appear in the summary and the Final Focus (PF)

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis of what it says is appreciated.

• Make sure to bring up concessions made during cross in speeches
• Theory is a tool used to ensure fairness in debate so please don't try to use it in the forms of abusive argumentation to win debates.

Hey, I'm Joey, and I debated for Strake Jesuit and graduated in 2021.

Add me to the email chain, and please have it set up before round. I also am fine with fileshare or speechdrop, whatever is fastest.
For online rounds, if we can start the round sooner (if all debaters are there before time), I'll boost speaks, but no pressure I'm fine starting right on time as well

josephgeorgesdebate@gmail.com

PF:

I prefer theory debates; otherwise, I'll adjudicate more similarly to a traditional judge since I'm not as immediately familiar with extension logistics and whatnot.

assume I know absolutely nothing about the topic/topic jargon

LD:

!!Note: I am usually highly preffed by debaters who read tricks/tricky positions, so if you are not fond of that style of debate, be wary in preffing me.

Non-negotiables:

One winner and one loser

Normal speech times - 6-3-7-3-4-6-3

Defaults:

~I can be convinced to go the other way very easily.

No judgekick

Truth testing

How to Win:

You do you – just do it well. Tell me very clearly how to evaluate the round and why you’re winning compared to your opponent, and that’ll probably be what I decide on. I liked to read a little of everything in my rounds, so don’t be afraid to try out some obscure strategy in front of me – just know how to explain it well enough for the win. I will say, though, I am more than fine evaluating these rounds, of course, but my least favorite types of rounds are LARP vs. LARP rounds.

How to Greatly Improve Your Chances at Winning & Boost Speaks:

-Weigh: Do it as much as you possibly can manage. It doesn't matter to me if you're winning 99% of the arguments on the flow; if your opponent wins just that 1% and does a better job at explaining WHY that 1% matters more in terms of the entire debate, you will probably lose that debate. Weighing + meta weighing + meta-meta weighing and so on is music to my ears. Also, doing risk analysis is excellent and very persuasive for weighing.

-Crystallize + Judge Instruction: You really don't need to go for every possible argument that you're winning. You should take the time to provide me with a very clear ballot story so that I know why I should vote for you. It might even behoove you to explicitly say: "Look. Here's the thesis of the aff/neg: (insert story of the aff/neg). Here's what we do that they can't solve for: (insert reason(s) to vote aff/neg). Insofar as I'm winning this/these argument(s), you vote aff/neg."

-Warrant your Arguments: When making arguments, be sure to provide clear WARRANTS that prove WHY your argument is true. Highlight these warrants for me and make sure to extend them for the arguments that you're going for in later speeches - if done strategically and well, I will probably vote for you. Also, pointing out the concession of warrants is just generally good for strength of link weighing, which I absolutely love. Please don't claim that stuff that isn't conceded is conceded, though; that is annoying to myself and your opponent.

-Signpost: Make very clear to me where you are on the flow and where you want me to put your responses. This will help to prevent any ambiguities that might affect my decision.

-Creatively Interpret/Implicate Your Arguments: Feel free (in fact, I encourage you) to provide your own unique spin to your arguments by providing implications that may not be explicit at first glance. Just make sure your original argument is open-ended enough to allow for your new interpretation. Truth claims are truth claims, so I don't care if you go for extinction outweighs theory, the kritik link turns fairness, or anything of the like, as long as you warrant the argument and win it.

Speed:

I’m fine with it– make sure to start off slow and ramp up to your higher speeds so that I can get used to it. I flow on my computer and will say slow or clear several times if necessary – that being said, if you still continue to be incoherent, I will not get your arguments on my flow and will not be able to evaluate them.

That being said, there are things I will DEFINITELY want you to slow down for to make sure that I catch them.

Slow down on:

1. Advocacy/CP Texts

2. Text of Evaluative Mechanism (This can include the text of your ROB, your standard/value criterion, etc.)

3. Theory Interps

4. After Signposting (Just pause for a second so that I can navigate to that part of my flow)

Speaks:

I will assign speaks based on your strategic decisions in round, but being clear definitely doesn’t hurt.

Random Notes:

-Tech > Truth:Technical proficiency outweighs the actual truth value of an argument. Even if I do not personally agree with your argument, the onus is on the opponent to prove why the argument is false or shouldn't be evaluated. If your opponent fails to do this, then I will view the argument as legitimate and will evaluate the argument accordingly.

-Talk to me prior to the round if you need any accommodations. If you have a legitimate problem with a specific argument that impedes you from debating at your best, then please, by all means, let me know before the round starts.

-Have Fun with the Activity: feel free to make jokes/references/meme (a bit) in round. Debate is admittedly a stressful activity, and so is school and basically the rest of life, so feel free to relax. Make sure that your humor is in good taste. However, there is a very fine line between humor and arrogance/insults, and I do not want to have to deal with a situation where "fun goes wrong."

Further notes:

- IF YOU'RE GIVING A 2AR VERSUS T OR THEORY, EXTEND CASE. I will negate on presumption if it's just a 3-minute PICs 2AR with nothing on case

- AGAINST NOVICES/NON-PROGRESSIVE DEBATERS: If this is a bid tournament, just don't be rude. You can read whatever position you want, but if you don't spread and read like a good phil NC or something so that the round is educational, you'll get good speaks. otherwise, read whatever you want. Idc ill give u normal speaks -- just try to make the round educational. the only time I will rly have to dock ur speaks is if you're being mean straight up. if it's elims, do whatever you need to win.

- I will not vote on an argument I don't understand or didn't hear in the initial speech, obviously, so even if you're crushing it on the flow, make sure you're flowable and explain things well.

- Prep time ends when you're done prepping, you don't need to take prep to send out the doc by email, but you do for compiling a doc.

- I will vote on non-T positions; just tell me why I should and explain the ballot story.

- Don't steal prep or miscut. u can call ev ethics by staking the round or reading it as a shell/making it an in-round argument - whatever u want.

Paradigms I ideologically agree with/took inspiration from:

Neville Tom (took the majority of his paradigm), Chris Castillo, Tom Evnen, Matthew Chen

You can run any argumentation (i.e. progressive argumentation is great) as long as it is respectful towards your opponent.

If you run a kritik, I expect an alternative to prove how neg can solve.

I don't flow cross, and if speed/audio quality is an issue I will address it right away for the clarity and fairness of the round.

Good luck, and have fun!

This is my first time judging public forum. I try to not be biased.

Respect your opponents and be polite to each other.

Speak slowly and clearly.

I will dock speaker points if you cut anyone off, or are condescending.

I stop listening when you go over time.

Have fun!

Logical articulation.

Please speak loudly so that every one in the room can hear clearly.

Please speak with normal conversational speed. If you speak too fast, I won't be able to have good notes for my ballot.

Please try to maintain good eye contact, but not read off from your screens. Debate is a human interaction.

Please be very structured and organized with your contentions.

Enjoy, improve, and have fun!

Policy Maker w/ Legal Framework

In general, the side with the best case will win the round. Persuade me that you are right.

Claims: I'm looking for quality over quantity. Hit the big nails with big hammers.

Evidence: Have evidence to back every claim you make. Be prepared to back up your claims. Quality of evidence matters.

Logic: I expect your arguments to be rational and reasonable. Irrational and unreasonable arguments will be ignored.

Clash:You will score most of your points on the clash. Tell me why your case is different and why it's better. Highlight the strengths of your case and the weaknesses in your opponent's. I'm looking for impacts, with more weight given based on the scope and significance of the impact.

As a general rule, I will accept all claims and evidence as true -- unless you challenge them. If you challenge a claim or evidence, be prepared to argue why you have the better position.

Comms:Communication skills are an important part of persuasion. I don't mind if you speak quickly, just as long as I can understand what you're saying. If you're spreading so fast that I can't make out what you're saying, I will stop flowing. (Although I will tolerate spreading a bit more in the L-D format.)

That said, I don't mind if you read your case and won't penalize you for it. But, I do give at least some weight to the unscripted moments.

If I'm genuinely unable to determine the winner on the cases, I will use comms as a tie-breaker. With that exception, you cannot win a case with better comms. But, you can lose a case with bad comms.

Abusive Frameworks/Joke Cases: Just don't. I do not follow a tabula rasa paradigm. It is hard to win my vote with an abusive framework and impossible to win with a joke case.

Congress: I've taught constitutional law at the law school level. I don't expect high school students to be legal experts, but I do enjoy constitutionally sound positions and arguments. If you feel strongly that a bill is unconstitutional, please feel free to argue your position without worrying about consensus. That said, be respectful, develop your impacts, find the clash, resolve conflicts, add something new to the discussion, and make the bill better.

Hello!

Email chain: Kalebhornedebate@gmail.com

I was a debater at Liberty University and read policy and K affs. Don’t be rude

Policy—

CPs: I’m pretty flexible on condo and not super likely to vote on theory. I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.

DAs: Please have complete DAs in the 1NC. Impact calculus should be more than the words probability, time frame, and magnitude.

Ks—

I read them at the end of my time at Liberty and am familiar with a good bit of K literature. However, for you pomo freaks, please explain your stuff.

On the Aff: it should probably be in the direction of the resolution but I can be persuaded. I find it frustrating when teams lose the performance of the aff by the 2ar. I don't care if there is a plan or not, just clearly explain your advocacy and justify your education.

Framework: please put the generic framework blocks down, I will get bored. Please please please engage with the aff even if you are going for framework: contextualize and explain the TVA, don't just say clash turns the DAs on FWK, etc. I find fairness less and less persuasive as an impact, but can be convinced to vote on it.

On the Neg: Contextualize the links and they should have impacts.

PF---

1. Please make complete arguments and extend them: please have claim, warrant, and impact :)

2. Speed is fine, make sure both sides are okay with it.

3. Keep track of your own speech times and prep.

4. Crossfire questions should be relevant to the arguments you are going to make.

5. Arguments in the last speeches should be in earlier ones.

6. Impact calculus is great. Tell me why I should vote on your impacts first.

7. Please give me a reason to care early in the debate.

8. If you tell me why to vote for you I probably will.

9. I don't believe in RVI's in PF, maybe you can impact turn T but I don't think that happens in PF.

10. I'm not sure that PF is debate.

Email: ahhuan25@colby.edu

Personal Qualifications: I was primarily an Extemper for four years but I've almost every event spanning both speech and debate.

About me:

I've been a member of different speech and debate programs for 5 years now where I've spent 4 years competing at the high school level in Texas and one year at the collegiate level as a part of Missouri Valley College's debate and forensics team. This experience has included 2 years of LD and policy, 4 years of congress,5 years of IEs, and 3 years of Public Forum debate.

Ev Sharing:

If you're going to do an email chain, I would like to be included: sidnihunter@gmail.com. If you know how to use speech drop and are comfortable with it this makes it a lot easier for teams to share and receive information.

General:

I'm willing to listen to just about any argument so long as it has warrants that are legitimate- in the end run whatever you prefer and what makes you comfortable. Thorough card analysis is the easiest way to win my ballot- you obviously understand the link but explain to ME why it matters. I'm more truth vs tech but I’ll vote tech if it’s obviously a tech round. With that being said, I'm fine with speed but know that if I can't understand you, I can't flow your arguments and that's going to hurt your ballot. Be courteous of your opponent(s) as well because if they can't understand you then there will be absolutely nothing educational about the round.

LD: When evaluating any round the first thing I look at is framework. You can lose the framework debate and still win my ballot, your impacts just have to be weighed in the framework that won the round. With that being said, there needs to be plenty of clash on a contention level basis and I expect both sides to extend your case into the 2nd.

PF: I've done a mix of both high school and college Public Forum. So, I'm really easygoing on the fact that I love both lay and techy rounds. But note that just because you're a techy team hitting a lay team doesn't give you my ballot. If what you're saying doesn't make sense to me then I have no reason to believe that it is true or matters. Make sure that your responses aren't just spewing cards and statistics at me but really walking me through the story. I wanna know why what you're telling me matters, and why what your opponent is saying is either wrong or doesn't matter. I'm a firm believer that most rounds can be won during the final focus. Give me a clear overview of the round and voters.

Policy:

Topicality

I enjoy a good T debate. Stock issues are still very important in traditional policy debates, and I want debaters to do it well. Run T if there is a clear violation. Please emphasize voters. Please give me reasons why your model for debate is the best model, and why your opponents' is either not as good, or actually bad for debate. Provide clear DAs and impact them out if you want a better chance at winning the round.

Disadvantages

Please read specific links if you have them. Tell me exactly how the aff plan fits into your scenario. I'm fine with terminal impacts as long as they are warranted. If you don't have a CP to solve the DA make sure UQ does not overwhelm the link.

Counterplans

I like CPs when they are run well. Please have a unique net benefit on the CP. You can read CP theory for the aff or neg. It's a neglected argument, but I actually like hearing theories on different types of counterplans. Provide specific solvency for the CP if possible, I'd rather not hear just one card on why the actor is better.

Ks

The link is incredibly important for me to evaluate the K. The alt should be feasible and clear-tell me why perms don't work and how it better solves the framing issues presented in the K. Chances are I probably don't know your lit base well so be prepared to explain it.

IEs, Congress, and Speaking events:Did these for four years so I know the rules and expectations vary by circuit. These events are so cool, but I've seen each individual one lose its distinctiveness from other events similar to it and become muddied/ washed down to another event (i.e. don't make a speaking event look like an interp event and vice versa.) You can be the best in the room but if I feel like your event is lacking the distinctive characteristics it is supposed to have or running too much like another event then I'm going to be inclined to vote you down.

be respectful to your opponent and/or everybody in your room :)

If you have any questions regarding my paradigm, please do not feel afraid to ask, I promise I will not bite you

I am a lay judge.

Email: caitlynajones1@gmail.com

Pronouns: (she/her)

I have done no topic research, so you should assume know basically nothing beyond what UNCLOS is.

Did mostly PF in high school + a year of LD. I've judged and coached both.

Argument-Specific Stuff

In general, I'm better at evaluating more traditional LD rounds, but some progressive stuff is fine if it's well done and you send a speech doc. Standard Value, Value Criterion, Disad, and Stock stuff are comfortably in my wheelhouse. If you want to run super progressive stuff, you need to check in with your opponent before the round and see if they are comfortable with progressive debate. Debate is inaccessible enough as it is, and I'm not going to penalize someone for not knowing how to engage with some blippy progressive stuff they don't see a lot on their home circuit.

If you read positions that don't make sense, expect a decision you won't like. I'm open to Kritiks, but super absurd/outlandish positions like "Death-Good" are not going to yield the result you want from me. I'm always going to be more persuaded to evaluate Kritiks that are related to the resolution as opposed to Ks with no link. This should go without saying, but if your alt doesn't actually have any solvency, you're better off just reading a stock case in front of me. Calling a problem to my attention is useless if you have no solution, and I'm not going to do mental gymnastics to find solvency in your K.

I'm not a fan of role of the ballot stuff. You're probably not going to convince me that voting a certain way will have any effect on policymaking and/or the debate community at large.

I'm a believer in the importance of the framework debate in LD. If you guys don't agree on the framework and no one does a good enough job convincing me why I should use theirs to evaluate the round, that makes my job a lot harder.

Full disclosure, I'm not that experienced in evaluating theory. I'm open to it, but I need you to provide a good doc so that I can follow along myself.

General Round Stuff

1. Concessions in cross need to be in a speech for me to flow and evaluate it.

2. I don't flow anything after the 10-second grace period.

3. Rudeness will get your speaker points docked. Please be respectful.

4. Running unethical arguments that make the debate space unsafe for other competitors will get you dropped. I have zero tolerance for bigoted/discriminatory arguments.

5. Some speed is fine, but spreading to the point where I can't understand anything you're saying is inadvisable. IF you choose to spread anyway, I need a speech doc and the marked doc when your speech is over.

6. Polite and respectful questions about my decision/my thoughts on the round are totally fine and encouraged. Aggressive post-rounding is not. If you insist on rudely post-rounding anyway, please remember that it won'tmake me change my decision but itwill make me go to tab to dock your speaker points.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly, thoughtfully and respectfully to your opponents.

I will vote based on whoever has the better arguments that "stand" at the end of the round.

Any sort of Discriminatory or hateful content will automatically result in a loss for that team. Please be respectful!

Good Luck!

I’m a parent volunteer judge in my for the last 2 years. I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to see the competitors in action!

POLICY:

Truth > Tech

Please ask me for my email in order to add me to the email chain. I'm not a big fan of spreading, but will not penalize debaters for doing so. However, I may not be able to keep up with it and it may ending up harming my understanding of your arguments and I may not be able to flow it. I prioritize clear speaking and factual arguments with clear evidence.

PFD:

As PFD is meant to be understood by a lay judge, please use clear delivery, everyday language, straightforward organization and credible evidence.

Please speak at an understandable pace. If you're speaking too quickly during an in-person round, I'll put down my pen as a sign that I can't understand what you're saying. In virtual competitions, I will place my hand near my ear to signal my inability to understand you at that pace. In both instances I will no longer be able to flow so those arguments will be dropped.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. If excessive time is spent trying to produce requested evidence, I will verbally warn you that I will soon begin to run prep time.

All jargon and acronyms should be clearly defined.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

Since I'll base my decision on the voters you provide in your Final Focus, it's your responsibility to convince me that you have won the round. Voters that do not accurately describe what occurred in the round will not be considered and speaker points will be lost.

CONGRESS:

Speak directly to the audience in a clear, loud voice and at a pace that allows your speech to be understood. Make frequent eye contact and only reference notes you have rather than reading your speech directly from paper.

Your speech should have distinct organization and be supported by credible evidence. Both the introduction and conclusion should clearly list your claims. Speeches with creative, memorable introductions that are then linked to your conclusions will earn more speaker points and improve your ranking.

After Authorship/Sponsorship, negative and affirmative speeches on legislation should present new perspectives or further refute opposing arguments rather than simply repeating previously stated points. Please do not merely read a speech that was entirely prepared beforehand.

When answering questions posed by other speakers, I'll be looking to see if you demonstrate a strong defense of your case as well as in-depth knowledge of the topic. Responses should be made with confidence and clarity.

While you won't be scored based on the questions you ask, your active involvement in the session will be noted by your participation in the question and answer periods.

SPEECH:

Speeches are ranked according to the following: (not in order of importance)

Originality of piece

Personal connection

Structure

Vocalization

Phrasing, pacing and fluidity

Speaker presence

Character development

Emotion

Transitions

Introduction/Conclusion

Looking forward to a wonderful competition!

I am a traditional style judge. Debates that are too "progressive" in nature undermine the entire tournament and are unfair to other competitors participating.

PFD: The most important thing to do prior to actually participating in PFD is preparation. One should know not only the current facts of the issue but also the continuity of the issue of time and its possibly complex history. This way, you can weave this history into your arguments by using EXAMPLES related to the historical ramification of the issue to strengthen your own argument while at the same time refuting the opponent.

LD: What I look for in LD is the hard drive of facts fueled by the passion of the debater. Passion does not equal emotion and while debaters tend to conflate the two LD is based in facts and most times statistical data.

Policy: What I look for in an effective Policy debate is fluidity of facts and a clear concise argument that does not get lost in spreading.

Congress: Parliamentarian: I look for proper etiquette when introducing motions. KNOW YOUR MOTIONS!!!! THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF MOTIONS THAT ARE NOT USED!!! I also look for the passion behind one's speeches. If someone is telling the story of George Floyd for example, the story should be told with pathos and passion rather than reading from a script. Know your speeches like the back of your hand in order to present yourself as a powerhouse on the congress floor.

The Presiding Officer: KNOW YOUR MOTIONS!!!! THERE ARE A PLETHORA OF MOTIONS THAT ARE NOT USED!!! The PO should have an in depth understanding of the common and uncommon types of motions in order to guide the session through both turbulence and lulls to preferably keep neither from happening. If one does not know this, refer here: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Congressional-Debate-Frequently-Used-Motions.pdf

Important Note: If you find yourself tripping over words when spreading, try slowing down. When faced with these obstacles, slowing down will equate to the same amount of facts in the same amount of time had you continued with speed but stumbling.

Debated 4 years on local NJ circuit + National circuit (2014-2018)

Judging Ohio Local Circuit + National Circuit (2019-2024)

1. If you use prep time, clarify how much you've used so that we are all on the same page and can hold one another accountable.
2. Grace periods of up to 10 seconds. If you abuse it more than that, I will not listen beyond that.
3. First summary is not expected to extend defense, but terminal defensive responses SHOULD be brought up.
4. Second summary should extend defense and likely discuss important responses from First Rebuttal
5. I do not flow crossfires. It is your responsibility to reference crossfire if you think an important concession or argument was made.
6. If it takes you longer than 3 minutes to pull up evidence, you can dip into your prep time to continue looking or drop the evidence
7. Speed doesn't matter to me. If you are not understandable, I will yell "CLEAR" once so that you know I cannot follow along, but will not do so again afterward.
8. No new arguments in final focus please. It's abusive and I will not evaluate it!
9. Whatever you discuss in final focus HAS TO be in your summary, or that is an extension through ink!
10. Any questions - let me know!

Hi, I am a parent judge. I’m looking forward to a great debate from both sides, and I would prefer a clear and concise debate with well thought out explanations.  

David Levin

he/him/his

Email chain: davidlevindebate[AT]gmail.com

Current Affiliations: Speyer School; Berkeley Carroll

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

----------

Top-Level Expectations:

-Be decent to one another

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

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

----------

NYC Districts (LD):

-Send docs in a downloadable format. I have had debaters send "view only" google docs, only to edit them and turn off access during round, among other academically dishonest actions. Due to this, do not begin your speech until I've downloaded the document that is accurate to what you're reading.

-Sending cards without highlighting is clipping.

-Paraphrased evidence is illegitimate.

-I have no problem voting for disclosure theory.

>90% of my judging has been for Policy and PF.

-I like critical arguments, and policy arguments a close second.

-Phil is pretty new to me - I can't say I fully get it yet, but if it's your bread-and-butter strat, run with it. You'll benefit from over-explaining.

-I'm not a fan of tricks, but it's your debate, not mine! I'll do my best to keep up, but I can't vote for an argument I don't understand by the end of the round.

-I've found LD to be more interpersonally prickly/uncomfortable than team debates. Lower the temperature. Be nice. Have some fun.

-Speed is fine but slow down for the start of your speeches, tags, and signposting between arguments. Neither of us want me to miss what you're saying, so help me help you. Once you're into the internals of the card, I am much more permissive.

-I'll probably be following along in the doc.

-If you're going to spread analytics, it is in your best interest to send them in the doc. I won't consciously punish you if you don't, but I may inadvertently punish you if I miss a key warrant because you zipped through it.

-I will never "eval" after any speech besides the 2AR, save for clipping or safety concerns.

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

-Don't read frivolous theory arguments. Disclosure theory is not frivolous.

-Speaker Points:

30: You were an astounding speaker and strategist, while demonstrating tact, grace, and good humor through your presence in the round. Your performance represented debate at its best.

29.5-29.9: You sincerely impressed me. You spoke well, and executed your strategy nearly flawlessly with no stone left unturned. I will tell my own students about your performance.

29.1-29.4: Very strong performance; What I'd expect of a 5-1 or 6-0 debater.

28.7-29: Well done; What I'd expect of a 4-2 debater.

28.4-28.6: Default; I'd generally expect you to go 3-3, give or take.

27-28.3: Varying degrees of gaps to fill - keep pushing!

<27: Something happened which warrants a conversation/intervention with your coach

----------

Policy:

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

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

-I'm happy to vote for procedural fairness.

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

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

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

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

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

-Generally, no RVIs.

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

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

-Perms are tests of competition.

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

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

-Signpost, Signpost, Signpost!

----------

Public Forum:

-Speed is fine if you're clear and loud

-Collapse on the argument you want written on my ballot

-Kicking an argument is distinct from not addressing an argument

-Weigh links, especially with similar terminal impacts

-Presumption defaults to the side closest to the status quo

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

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

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

----------

I am a "lay" judge. Please speak clearly, avoid speed, explain thoroughly and do not make assumptions about my knowledge of the topic. I prefer well articulated argumentation. Please don't be too tech-y with me, I don't know what Ks or T or phil are.

I am a College Junior that used to compete in high school public forum and policy debate.

I am fine with any type of argument as long as it has a clear impact and solid links. I am fine with theory as long as you make it very clear to understand.

I am a big fan of roadmaps. Please signpost. If you intend on spreading, know that I will try my best to get everything onto my flow but may miss some things.

If sharing cases is permitted, I am a big fan of referring to it as you give your speech, although I won't look back at it when making my final decision.

Please give me clear voters.

Thank you!

Westwood 22

amoghdebatedocs@gmail.com

Debated PF for four years and coached for two.

I haven't been too involved in debate this year so I won't have any topic knowledge - I would err on the side of over explaining.

Please set up email chains BEFORE the round so we can start on time. Add me to the chain.

Send all the cards you read BEFORE your speech, I won't look at evidence that isn't in the email chain.

Evidence quality matters - if you have good evidence tell me (or if your opponents don't.) If go for topic specific strategies that display novel research I will reward you with speaks.

Read whatever you want - I won't vote on something I can't explain to the other team.

Be respectful.

If you have questions, email me and feel free to ask questions after the round too.

I use she/her pronouns

Background on who I am. I did mainly Public Forum and Congress at Cherry Creek High School in Colorado and went to Nationals and State multiple times for PF. I currently do Parliamentary Debate(NPDA) at Whitman College, an impromptu policy debate (imagine CX but we get the topic pre-round and only have 25 minutes to prep for those who don't know) and have placed nationally multiple times.

I will vote down teams that run any arguments that are blatantly bigoted or drop a slur.

For PFers:

Do whatever you want within reason. Off time roadmaps good with me. I'm a flow judge. 15 second grace period. Debates a game I'll treat as such, run whatever you want. I love weird cases. Ive run all sorts weird things and am happy to hear whatever as long as you can back it up and youre topical. Id like to think I'm pretty fair, I will listen to arguments that are more shakey on a logic level if they are carded and well defended. Please collapse in the FF dont throw the round bc your FF refused to give me clear voters. I lean tech over truth

If you are running Ks look to CX. I think Ks shouldn't be run in PF and likely wouldn't vote on them but if you have a project send it anyway I wont auto vote down, just a really really high threshold. Maybe the norms have radically changed since I left and Ks are all over if that's the case I'm probably more likely to hear them if I keep hearing like Deep Eco nonstop and that just seems accepted as ok.

For LDers:

LD is the debate I have the least exposure. However I have been judging lots of LD rounds and still think I'm a fair and good judge. I also just love philosophy. If youre collapsing to Criterion or CV tell me why I should care I think one of the biggest mistakes around CV/Crit debates is just telling me you won it but dont telling me why I should vote on it. 15 second grace period. I love listening to weird cases as well and have read a lot of philosophy lit, but am also cool if you treat it more like a policy/PF round and go harder for the impacts. Pretty much just do what you want within reason.For LD debates that want to treat LD more like a policy round look to Policy below for most of my opinions on that.

For CXers/Policy:

Rankings of args in my preference of seeing them

1 Neg K

2 PTX

3 Aff K

4 Clever T

5 other policy cases

6 Normal T

7 PICs

-25 garbage late round T

The majority of my Policy experience has been in college that being said I've heard lots of cases, Ks, Theory, etc. Dont spread but high speed is fine just don't do spreading proper, I cant handle it I don't want it. I also think on an ethical level extreme spreading is unethical and ableist. Make it clear when you kick things. I can understand most jargon you can go tech heavy if you want. I lean tech over truth. I think the most fair way to evaluate rounds is on the flow. Im a sucker for solvency and uniqueness args.

TLDR on CX:

Good with almost everything. I love Ks the most. Feel free to run wild arguments. Ill vote on nearly anything.

On Policy based Cases (Plans, Ads, DAs, CPs)

Signpost well. Make sure to do good impact calc and collapse clearly. Idk ask me before round about specifics here. I am okay with PICs but think that PICs are abusive you open yourself up to T ground if you do run one. If you're running a PIC I want a clear DA attached with solid competition claims layered somewhere. I love PTX DAs, clout tradeoff, scheduling delays, anything big fan of PTX. DAs don't need CPs. I think where policy cases fail is the connection between the links and the out there impacts like nuke war that teams go for. If you're going for these types of args just spend more time on brink scenarios and how the case triggers. While I lean K over Policy I feel plenty comfortable voting on policy.

On Ks

There is one exception to my paradigm on Ks. I wont vote up a team that runs a K based on an author who directly participated in a genocide. Basically dont run Mao or Stalin(you can think of more examples that arent marxist I'm sure), there are plenty of really good non-genocidal communist lit for debate.

I am a bit of a K hack (okay more than a bit) I love Ks. No matter what it is extremely hard to vote on a K I do not understand. This doesn't mean don't run something new or weird, just that it needs to be well explained. please run your new whacky K that you dont think anyone will listen to, I will. I have run/heard/know about every "standard" K I hope people would be willing to run and a lot more that arent standard. I run weird Ks with lit bases no ones heard of so I can handle some K that I've never heard of. My lack of knowledge on your lit base pre-round will never be a reason why I vote you down. I also like a "straight cut" K if that's more you're vibe. That being said run whatever you want in terms of a K as long as you can make it make sense and explain it well. If I cant understand what your K does I probably wont vote on it but your K can do "nothing" or have some small like rhetorical rupture; I just need to understand it enough to use my ballot to vote you. I am good with Aff Ks too. I have a marginally higher threshold for Aff Ks but I run them all the time and think they are a constructive part of the debate space. Aff Ks can be abusive contextually well to the res.

On Theory

I like theory. Ive become a bit of a fan of T in rounds. I like T when its right, which doesn't mean you cant run T that isnt just straight topicality (I'm personally a big fan of spec in my rounds). If the aff is topical dont run a T that says the aff should be topical just run something else A-Spec, E-Spec, funding, Fx, idk go wild. Hopefully my point is made dont be afraid to run T no matter how complex the T is as long as the T is probably correct. I know mistakes are made and T is run that is not correct and there will never be a violation. I dont care if you run the T as a time suck either from a strat level just dont run bad T. T can be abusive I don't care if your T shell is just so good that the aff functionally cannot meet. Good T is good T.

I dont default to Apriori over K, but lean that T should come above the K naturally. If you run a K just make clear layer claims. CI is better than reasonability but again not a hardline for me.

For Parli

I would generally say that all my philosophy for Parli is the same as on CX.

The exceptions are:

MG theory. I loathe MG theory and really cant see a world where I vote on it unless its like "neg slurred me and that's bad". I wont vote on Condo unless its ridiculous like 4 Ks that are all conditional.

LOR and PMR should have clear impact calc

I think due to the impromptu nature of Parli you can be much squirellier and more unhinged than in CX. Get crafty.

TL:DR

Do what you want have fun, dont go too fast, signpost, convince me and defend your cases and youll do well :).

I have been competing, coaching, and judging in forensics for over 3 decades.  I have judged, competed, or coached just about every type of debate that exists at the high school and collegiate levels.  That being noted, my paradigm is as follows.

The debate is defined within the round by the competitors.  However, I do prefer full arguments and positions rather than blip arguments.  I do not mind any arguments being offered as long as there is a rational, logical, and coherent justification to do so.  I prefer there is cogent argumentation rather than tricks or K for the sole purpose of trying to win, this cheapens the activity and reduces it to a game. I believe there are valid reasons for running a K, but those justifications need to be made apparent within the debate.

I also have the highest respect for this activity and hope that students do as well.  This activity is about arguments.  As such, any ad homs or discrimination of any kind will result in a loss.  These are antithetical to the fundamental principles of debate and the respect that competitors deserve.

I will admit that I am not a huge fan of speed.  I can flow fast debates, but if the arguments are incoherent, I cannot judge them.  I do not believe that my reading of a case or arguments is an actual debate.  That is not to say that I won't interrogate or call for evidence, but I do not want to rely on reading cases to be able to understand the debate.

I love debate and want to make sure that students are holding this incredible activity in the highest esteem.

General

• Don't be rude to your opponents during, before, or after the round.
• I have some difficulty hearing and processing information, so I would appreciate it if you send speech docs! I will dock speaking points if you don't send speech docs.
• I prefer if you send them as PDFs!
• I do not understand K's or Theory, unless it is it is disclosure theory, trigger warnings theory, or paraphrasing theory. I flow it, but it may not weigh heavy in my decision.
• Email: blmeints1@gmail.com or bmeints@lps.org

PF

All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides. Failure to provide evidence in a timely manner when requested will result in either reduced speaker points or an auto loss (depending on the severity of the offense).

I prefer the final focus to be focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story. Second rebuttal should extend their case. Lastly, not sure this is still a thing anywhere but I want to mention it still. The team that speaks first does not need to extend their own case in their first rebuttal since nothing has been said against it yet.

Congress

In Congress I like to see sound use of evidence and non-repetitive speeches. I appreciate congress folks who flow other speeches and respond to them. I also like to see extension and elaboration on arguments, referencing the congressperson who initially made the argument. Questioning is also important, because I want to make sure that you are able to defend your arguments!

I am an Engineer with several tournaments experience at Varsity PF judging. I like a narrative approach where you lay out the framework of your case even if it comes down to a technical RFD. I rely heavily upon evidence-based arguments and impacts. Don't argue that 100's of millions will die by nuclear war if it is a non-unique argument or you have not even presented a good probability we are headed in that direction.

If you have not won me over by the start of Final Focus, you better layout all the reasons why I should vote for AFF or NEG. Lead me to a decision.

The narrative isn't the only thing I consider, but try to be cohesive... i.e. connect the dots.

A few notes:

- You will never lose the round for being a JERK in cross, but I will give you low speaker points. Rudeness or excessive sarcasm is not rewarded here. Equity in all forms is expected.

- Weigh! Weigh! Weigh! I'm not going to catch everything so I need you to give some sort of weighing mechanisms and have valid probabilities for your impacts.

- I can take speed but do not spread. I will say "clear" or "Speed" twice and then I stop flowing altogether.

- If you go slightly over time that's OK, but keep it under 10-secs.

- 2nd rebuttal must front line.

- Speak up a little, I can't hear well (no, I am not kidding). I will miss most of what you say if you speak to me from behind your laptop. Beware of over-sized lecterns if you need a stand for your laptop.

- Time yourselves, please. Don't steal prep time just because we are ONLINE.

PS: Don't get too comfortable entering the room. After the coin toss, I prefer PRO on my left. Yes, I realize this does not apply in an ONLINE environment.

Current Debate Coach at Bentonville High School. Forensics competitor in high school 2008-2012. Debate (mostly IPDA) competitor in college 2014-2016.

Debating should be fun! We should always seek to be respectful and friendly.

Especially for LD, I heavily weigh rounds on value/framework- do not drop this. If your opponent has a different framework than you do, I expect to see clash on this.

Impact calculus is critical. I expect to hear this throughout the round- not just last speeches

Spreading is fine! I expect to have your case shared with me so I can follow.

Overall ability to persuade/obviously being the stronger debater will 80% of the time win you the round. If I am more convinced, I simply have to vote for you. There are endless tools to be able to do this- effective & dominate speaking ability, emotion, stronger clash, Ks, etc. It is difficult to be convinced by a team that is obviously not as strong in persuasion, but of course that can happen and I will write my explanation on ballots. Definition debates are my least favorite thing ever! Clash with the content of your cases!

I judge primarily as tech over truth. If you say something that is outright NOT true, I cannot overlook that, but I leave my bias/knowledge at the door as much as is appropriate & will judge simply on what happens in-round.

Don't be afraid to make me laugh!! Bachelorette/Survivor references are always appreciated.

I did primarily PF for 4 years and have coached PF and some Extemp at Theodore Roosevelt since 2019. I'm an average flow judge who's on and off the national circuit.

Email chain: morgandylan183@gmail.com

Tech > Truth, love the game, though I think the way PF debaters think of tech debate at the moment harms their overall debate skills,round clarity, and personal growth. Constructing and defending arguments rooted in at least some truth, being ok with having to adapt to anyone in front of you, and narrative debate will help you after you graduate much more than spreading 4 kinda stupid contentions, card dumping blippy responses, and hoping your opponents miss something. Cheap tricks anywhere will never get you far, and yeah, you're cheating yourself. That being said, I don't dislike those types of rounds at all if they are done well, and I definitely enjoy extinction rounds, but I think the tendency to value those debates over anything else without question is bad for PF.

I’m not going to answer any questions before the round unless both teams are present. Ask me anything you'd like afterward.

Do not wait for me, start setting up asap

Do not go over time or prep steal. Call your opponents out if they do this. I try to time, but keep track of each other.

I don't like flex prep or talking to your partner in cross or speeches. Cross is binding, and defense is never sticky.

I evaluate the round: first, by looking to framework, then, if there is none, weighing to see where I should look to vote first. If the team that wins the framing or weighing extends and wins their argument, they win. If neither framework or weighing occur, I look to what's left in final focus and whichever team has the path of least to their impact. I default to scope. Tell me in a speech what I should do instead if you want.

I would prefer it if you told me how I should evaluate the round or write my ballot and WHY. judge instruction is a lost art.

Framework: Tbh I don't really have a ton of of experience with anything more advanced than util, SV, etc. just explain it to me and why I should prefer it

Speed: I will not follow along in a doc. I usually like flowing faster rounds, but you're risking me not catching or understanding what you say, especially online. I can keep up ok,probably about 225-240 wpm that's clear. I flow on paper, so my hand starts hurting sometimes. We'll see if I move to my laptop. I hate blippy and frantic speed; make it intentional and remain clear. I will clear you twice, but do not clear the other team.

Slow down on tags, stats, if your arguments are less common, and a bit in the back half

Evidence: only read cards. If it is misrepresented, I'll strike it from the flow, but you must tell me in a speech to look at it and why. I don’t like having to look at evidence, but I will if it’s essential for my decision. I’d strongly prefer if you resolve the evidence debates in speeches. I despise teams that lie about evidence.

General Preferences of Arguments:

You need to fully (u + l + il + impact) extend your arguments. Not extending your argument means I cannot vote for it, even if your opponents do not call it out.

Quality over quantity (collapse on your offense and defense, or you will lose)

Resolve clash, and you will win.

Frontline in 2nd rebuttal. The best 2nd rebuttals frontlne and collapse on what they're going for, frontline turns, and maybe weigh. If you try to frontline your whole case, I won't catch all the frontlines, and you'll probably undercover their case. If you can do it well without causing those problems, go for it.

Anything in final focus needs to be in summary, no new weighing mechanisms in final focus, only expansion of ones from summary, responses to the opponent's weighing, new meta weighing is ok.

I love logical warranting, smart analytics, knowing your evidence, and real-world knowledge. It should be obvious that this is what every judge wants, but PFers increasingly lack this and rely on evidence/arguments from the wiki without doing their own work cutting cards or following the news :(

you do not need a card for everything. If you use “they have no evidence” as a response against a smart analytic using background knowledge, I will scoff.

You need consistent responses starting in rebuttal; entirely new arguments that need evidence to be true starting in summary is not a good strategy. This is why you can't spread yourself thin in 2nd rebuttal, especially.

MORE WEIGHING AND COMPARISON OF ARGS CAN START IN 1ST CROSS, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

Progressive Arguments

If I have to, I’ll listen to and vote on anything within reason.

I'm familiar with most theory arguments, but honestly, I don't really like them. I really don't want to listen to frivolous theory. I get a bit lost with the jargon and specifics on my flow sometimes. I do my best not to be biased, but I despise bad evidence ethics and improper disclosing. I'm going to give you very low speaks and have a low threshold for responses to frivolous shells like Comic Sans.

I prefer K’s to theory, but I'm unfamiliar with nearly all the K literature, so just simplify it for me. I understand the basic structure and have decent real-world knowledge. Know your links, alt/s, run it well, and we won't have a problem. None identity K’s would be fun to listen to.

Slow down and explain everything more for prog debates. I require sending speech docs to everyone. Do not run progressive arguments against clearly inexperienced debaters in front of me. If you haven't run into prog arguments before, don't just complain about how you don't know how to respond.

PF has very short speech times, so I will be a particularly bad judge if there are a lot of offs and you go fast.

Speaks: I range from 27.5-29.5, nothing crazy. My favorite things are comfort and confidence, humor, smart strategies, efficient word economy, and good comparison/weighing. Also good warranting/nuance. Basically everything I said above

Welcome PF Debaters.

I'm a parent judge but this is my 4th year judging public forum debate.

Few tips for your success:

1. Be simple and concise
2. Evidence decides the round but, I'll only call for pieces of evidence that are highly disputed
3. Please don't speak too fast, I can only give feedback on what I can understand
4. Be organized and signpost throughout your speech
5. Most importantly respect others and be professional regardless of your opponents and their backgrounds
6. Debate should be a fun activity and debaters should enjoy it

All the best, Karthikk

1. Focus only what I hear from each participant in the debate.

2. Speak clearly, slowly with good eye contact instead just reading from notes.

3. I collect notes from entire debate flow and give the points based on individual performance and finally compare both the teams and decide the winner.

I have done PF judge for several years as a parent judge. I don't have certain merits what would guarantee a win. Please prepare well, be yourself, try your best, and never give up.

It will be very helpful for me if you could provide signpost, compare evidence, weigh impact and scope. Summary and final focus is very important for decision making.

Enjoy the journey and have fun!

I'm a parent judge and new to this. Please keep time throughout the round. I'm looking forward to listening to you debate today!

Hello,

I am a 4th year parent judge and am looking forward to meeting you. I would say that I tend to lean towards the argument that has the most impact over the quantity of points.

Best wishes!

Tristan

Hi, I am Pallavi Patel. I am a parent judge. My student attends Interlake High School.

I am a lay judge. I will enforce the rules of debate including speaking during designated times. I like strategies grounded in literature about the topic, well explained arguments, and clear organization. Teams that have good consistency in their arguments is also important.

Good Morning. I am a parent Judge and have judged only few times. Make sure your arguments are clear so that I can understand and judge accurately. No new arguments in final focus, I won't evaluate them, and please weigh.

add me to any email chains devi.poonguzhali@gmail.com.

Hello everyone!

My name is Michele Reich and my son is in public forum. Please speak conversationally and use a normal rate of speech. I really don’t like when debaters speak super fast to cram in a bunch of info. I will automatically vote against you if you run theory- please be respect of each other!

I'm a lay judge (my partner is a coach) and most of my experience is in Speech events, so thanks in advance for your patience!

I'd prefer no spreading--I'll do my best to keep up, but I'll let you know if you're going way too fast for me. No need to send me your case, but I may ask to see a card or two if I need more clarity. The specifics of setup don't really matter to me (whether you sit or stand when speaking, how you arrange desks, using your own timers etc.) but I do think the rounds are more effective when debaters are interfacing with their opponents rather than presenting directly to me.

Ultimately my decisions are made pretty simply--winning side is the one that's made the most clear and relevant claims and refuted their opponents consistently and memorably. I do my best to get a comprehensive flow, but it won't be perfect, so try to make your major points stick in my brain. You can run theory and K's if you like, but be advised that I'm not quite the target audience for those :)

I prefer not to disclose my decision, but it's all right to ask me other questions at the end of the round.

Be respectful and level-headed--repeated interruptions and condescension are my pet peeves. Every round is an opportunity to learn and make connections, not enemies.

If there's anything else you need to know, feel free to ask! I wish you the best of luck and hope you enjoy the competition.

hi! i'm anisha (she/her) and i've been doing LD for the last 4 years at Enloe

add me to the email chain: anisharoy0211@gmail.com

a couple things to keep in mind:

• i consider framework debate before weighing the contention-level. however, don't have a values debate if they're essentially the same, move on to weighing impacts.
• i tend to be more traditional, but can judge progressive LD -- willing to entertain theory, K's, progressive case structures, etc. explanation/narrative is still key, i'd like to see that you know what you're running
• fine with spreading, just ensure that your opponent is too
• weigh!!! say your impacts outweigh and explain what weighing mechanisms matter most
• please signpost!
• i like seeing voter issues in the last speeches, use them to concisely and effectively tell me why you win
• be respectful and kind! i will deduct speaks for disrespect
• as for speaks, i'll start on 28, and go up or down based on efficiency, decorum, and attitude

good luck and have fun!

email:

Isaiahsalgado24@gmail.com

About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Afropessimism K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.

Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.

Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.

Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.

In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.

Evidence Reading: I will read your cards if you urge me to look at them, or if they are contested during the round. Otherwise, I am assuming they say what you tell me they say. IF you don't mention the evidence outside of the 1ac/1nc, they most likely wont stay in the forefront of my mind during the debate. This means reading the evidence will a clear voice will give you an advantage with me, because I will most likely understand the evidence better.

Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame

MISC:

Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.

I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.

Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.

FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.

K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.

I'm way more truth than tech.

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Personal Note: I discovered at my last Diwali party that I am developing some difficulty in processing accents, especially in groups of voices at onces like Berkeley tables. I have a hearing appointment coming up, but I will yell clear to let you know.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

If you attempt to exceed a speed that your enunciation can handle, I will yell "clear" at least once before I stop flowing and try to focus on what you are saying

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed in Policy, sofast can be ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

DISCLOSURE: I regard disclosure as a tool for rich schools with multiple employees to prep out schools with less resources. This is not a theory arg I am synmpathetic to.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

https://victorybriefs.substack.com/p/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor

kschwab@pinescharter.net

I've been coaching and teaching Debate (as well as the AICE courses Global Perspectives & Thinking Skills) for the past 14 years.

For LD/PF/Policy

Even though I have experience on the circuit and enjoy different types of cases, I am not a buyer of the belief that the technical should rule because sometimes format is not as important as content & understanding what you are running. I would consider myself a truth over tech although it will come to the clash provided not my own opinion on the truth. I will stick to the flow unless someone gives me a good reason to vote for them that is true and benefits the debate/educational event. I believe that kritiks, theory, LARP, etc... are all beneficial to learning and play into strategy, so I will vote in favor of anything IF you are able to prove the link is logically clear and strong enough in regards to what your opponent says is the reason for why I should not accept.

I do NOT have a preference for framework/cases - I've heard almost every kind by now and all types have won and lost my vote. Extinction impacts bore me without link work done, so I'd appreciate you at least have some linked harm impacts before extinction level even if final impact is extinction.

I can handle speed (even spreading) pretty well by now - if there is an issue with understanding or hearing I will say "clear" and will also check cards at the end for anything I missed...but please keep in mind that there are certain aspects in a construction that maintains well with speed and other areas that don't (i.e. - if you need me to understand how a philosophy or theory applies then allow me to absorb each part before rushing to the next because those are building block arguments, so missing one part can make the whole thing fall).

Congress:

This is a role playing event - I would like you to act better than our current congress :) I'm big on arguments... not on summation evidence (the kind that is just a quote that someone said the same thing as your claim). I like you to talk to us...be charming or intelligent or both if you really want my top scores. I love this event because when it's good it's so good. Have fun, be smart, and don't leave the chamber during session unless an emergency - there are plenty of breaks and I appreciate when students that don't take extra ones. Overview below:

Speech score based on: intro purpose, argument basis & hard evidence warranted, impacts clear...answers in questioning can impact your speech score. - not a fan of "I'm sure you can tell me" or responding in anger. Remember you are trying to prove your knowledge on topic and convince others to vote with you.

I have some experience as a parent judge. Please speak at 1x. Time each other and call out if any rules are broken. My email address is pankaj.shrivastava@gmail.com, if you guys want to share cases and evidence with me prior or during the round. Good luck and enjoy the tournament.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

hi! i debated pf in hs. toc '19!

former co-director for nova debate camp, former coach for ardrey kell VM and oakton ML. add me to the email chain: iamandrewthong@gmail.com

tl;dr, i'm a typical flow judge. i'm tab and tech>truth, debate however you want (as long as it does not harm others). for more specific stuff, read below

most important thing:

so many of my RFDs have started with "i default on the weighing". weighing is NOT a conditional you should do if you just so happen to have enough time in summary - i will often default to teams if they're the only ones who have made weighing. strength of link weighing counts only when links are 100% conceded, clarity of impact doesn't.

other less important stuff:

speed is ok. i think it's fun. i actually like blippy disads (as long as they have warrants). but don't do it in such a way that it makes the debate inaccessible - drop a doc if your opponents ask or if someone says "clear".

whenever you extend something, you have to extend the warrant above all else.

defense is not sticky, but my threshold for completely new frontlines in second summary is super high. turns must be frontlined in second rebuttal.

new implications off of previous responses are okay (in fact, i think they're strategic), but they must be made in summary (unless responding to something new in final). you still need to have concise warranting for the new implication, just as you would for any other response.

i don't flow cross - if they make a concession, point it out in the next speech.

weighing is important, but comparative and meta weighing are even more important. you can win 100% of your link uncontested but i'd still drop you if you never weigh at all and the opps have like 1% of their link with pre-req weighing into your case. don't just say stuff like "we outweigh because our impact card has x and theirs has y and x>y", but go the next step and directly compare why your magnitude is more important than their timeframe, why your prereq comes before their prereq, etc. if there is no weighing done, i will intervene.

i encourage post-round questions, i'm actually happy to spend like however long you want me to just answering questions regarding my decision. just don't be rude about it.

progressive arguments:

i will evaluate progressive arguments (Ks, theory, etc).

no friv theory, no tricks

i default to reasonability, RVIs, and DtD *if not told otherwise* - before you start e-mailing me death threats, this is just so teams can't read random new shells in summary unless they're going to spend the time reading warrants for CI and no RVIs - i prefer theory debates to start in constructive/rebuttal, and i'll be sympathetic to teams that have to make new responses to a completely new shell in summary or final focus

i'm less versed on Ks than i am theory. i can probably follow you on the stock Ks (cap, sec, etc), but if you're going to run high level Ks (performance, afropess, etc), i'll still evaluate them, but i advise you run them with caution, since i might not be able to get everything down 100%. it's probably best to make these types of Ks accessible to both me and your opponents (you should honestly just explain everything like i'm a lay judge, and try to stay away from more abstract phil stuff like epistemology/ontology/etc).

if you have any more questions, feel free to ask or e-mail me before the round!

I believe that high school debate and forensics should be a learning and growing activity for students. Winning is fun but competitor growth is more important.

I appreciate that there are different styles of debate and that many competitors try several different debate styles. We have different forms a debate for a reason. As competitors, it is your responsibility to know what makes those different forms similar and what makes them different. Make sure you are debating in a manner that respects and highlights the unique aspects of your debate form. Don't try to mash styles together by using techniques associated with one debate style into one where it isn't practiced.

With that being said here are some items that will give you more insight into how I judge:

*I am a flow judge.

*Signpost PLEASE - if you don't tell me where to apply your argument I will NOT be inferring.

*I would like a quick off the clock roadmap prior to your speech (not necessary for first speakers). This should be a brief overview of what you plan to cover. Example: I will be covering my opponents case and then my case. This is all the detail I need so I can be on the right flow.

**Theory debate - I don't like it. We are here to debate a topic not a theory - many of you are preparing for careers that will demand you provide argumentation and rebuttal and that can't happen if we aren't dealing with the topic.

*DO NOT SPREAD - it is not in your best interest for me not to be able to flow you - if I can't flow you can't win. You will know I can't flow your speech because I will put my writing utensil down.

*Be Courteous - the round needs to be about the clash of claims not the clash of attitudes.

*If you provide a weighing mechanism/framework/value and value criterion PLEASE use it during the debate. Don't bring it up in your first speech and not talk about it again until your last speech.

*If you are using a prepared speech PLEASE make sure you have practiced it before the round to ensure it is as fluid as possible. Also make sure you are pronouncing all names and words correctly.

*I am not a fan of Ks although I am learning more about them and why they can help a debate round. My preference is topic debate. If you can link your K to why your opponent can't access their impacts then I am all ears.

*I am a traditional judge/coach.

*In Public Forum:

**If your case is one or two lengthy contentions with no subpoints and lots of evidence PLEASE make sure that you are tying these to the resolution. I prefer clearly labeled contentions and subpoints. It is just easier to flow.

**Please make sure you are using the summary and final focus speeches for what they are intended. I place a lot more weight on what happens in these four speeches than the first four. You are the one debating. You tell me what the major arguments are. Don't make me figure this out. Listen to each other during this time. I LOVE when Final Focus has clash!!!

**Crossfire is an important part of the debate. I don't flow it but I do listen. If you want something that occured during crossfire to be weighed in the round you MUST bring it up during the next speech.

*In Congressional Debate

**Please remember this is a speaking and debate activity. I want to see rebuttal arguments as well as new arguments for the side you are supporting. Prepared speeches are nice but if you are any speaker after the first aff/neg, please provide some argumentation with sound evidence. Make sure you have a good balance between old and new arguments.

*In Big Question

**Make sure that you are debating the topic!!

*In Lincoln/Douglas

**Please see note above about value/value criterion. This is 100% how I am going to evaluate the round. If each sides presents different V/VC our round centers on these and not your contentions unless you are also tying your V/VC to your contentions which would be AWESOME!! I would prefer to hear a debate on the topic but if the round goes here let's make sure we are really showing the importance of the V/VC.

Weighing and spelling out to me as a judge why your arguments are more important than your opponents is significant and holds worth for the outcome.

It would be much preferred if each speaker spoke clearly and at a slower pace. The faster the pace, the harder it gets to process everything of significance, therefore, speaking slower has more advantages. However, I do not mind if the pace is still slightly fast.

I expect a clean, respectful round where both teams hold true to being mindful of their attitude and tone. While I love to see clash in a round, I hope that nothing gets too aggressive. I like to see strong arguments thoroughly presented with evidence that backs them up.

Hi!

This is my first time judging. I have the following preferences:

a) Please speak clearly and try not to be too loud.

b) Please be polite.

c) Please explain your arguments clearly

d) Please use off time road map and sign posting

e) Please show clarity on the definitions used in the arguments.

Thank you!

I'm a parent judge that has been judging debate for two years. I strive to be impartial.

Respect your opponents and be polite to each other.

Speak slowly and clearly.

I will dock speaker points if you cut anyone off, or condescending.

I stop listening when you go over time.

Have fun!

Speech/Platform

General:I'm looking for clear organization and relatively equal splits for the main points. I'm also looking for sourcing - minimum two sources per point of the speech with at least another source in the intro. The better speeches, in my opinion, cite at least seven sources - especially platform events. Also for platform events - originality of topic is taken into consideration (generally as a tie-breaker when two performances are equal).

Extemp:You gotta answer the question and connect each point to the answer. If your points are general and don't directly relate to your question it's gonna knock you down. Sources must be cited with at least month and year for articles in the last twelve months and year for older articles. Bonus points for a variety of publications and a hook that cleanly connects to the topic.

Informative:Visual aids should ENHANCE the speech, NOT MAKE the speech. If they are distracting me from the content of your speech then it will detract from your ranking.

Interpretation

Important Judging Quirk:I write comments as I'm watching (it's my version of flow for interp) so you're gonna get a stream-of-consciousness of what I'm thinking throughout the performance. I'm not being rude. I'm just giving you my real, raw thoughts as I watch your performance. If I'm confused you'll know I was confused. If I'm turned off by something you'll know I was turned off. If something made me feel an emotion you'll know it. If these types of ballots offend you STRIKE ME NOW. Do not wait until you get your ballot back and make me look like a bad guy because you didn't like how I took in your performance in the moment. Unlike a lot of interp judges (my kids do this event and I see their ballots) I'm trying to write down my thoughts and comments as they pop in my head, before I forget them forever. As a result (and with the number of rounds I judge) I don't always do a great job of editing these comments to make sure they won't sting. But students, coaches, if I say something you feel was unnecessarily hurtful please find me and talk to me. It was never my intention and I'd be happy to clarify my thoughts.

General:Performance needs a clear plot line (rising action, climax, falling action). No plot line? Not gonna be a good ranking. Character differentiation is key as well. If I get confused as to who is speaking when, it's gonna take me out of the performance. Blocking should make sense with the plot and remain consistent. If you create a wall, don't walk through the wall. Volume control is also considered - does the yelling make sense? Does it make me shrink away and not want to listen (not a good thing)? Is it legible? Emotions should match the scene/character as set up by previous scenes.

HI:I've become notorious for not laughing during performances. This is not me purposefully not laughing or trying to throw you off - I just don't find the humor in current HIs funny. In those cases I'm looking more at the characterization and plot line in the piece. That being said, if you see me laugh that is a genuine laugh and it'll for sure go into my considerations of rankings.

Debate

TL;DR: If it’s not on my flow it doesn’t exist. If I can’t explain the argument to you in oral critiques/on my ballot I won’t vote on it. Disrespect, discrimination, or rudeness will cost speaks or, if severe enough, the round. Also, I agree with Brian Darby's paradigm. Go read that and come back here for specifics.

If the words "disclosure theory" are said in the round I will automatically give the team that introduced it the down.

General: I won’t do the work for you. I am tech unless the argument being run is abusively false (Ex: The Holocaust was fake; the Uyghur camps in China are #FakeNews; the sky is red; etc.). I don’t care what you run or how you run it (with a few exceptions below). You need to weigh, you need to explain why you won, you need to extend, you need to signpost. At the end of the round, I want to be able to look at my flow and be able to see clear reasons/arguments why one particular side won the round. I don’t want to have to do mental gymnastics to determine a winner and I hate intervening. Do I prefer a particular style? Sure, but it doesn’t impact my flow or my decision. If you win the argument/round (even if I don’t enjoy it) you won the argument/round.

Style Preference

Email chains/Cards

Don't put me on the chain. You should be speaking slow enough that I don't need to read the speech docs in round to keep my flow clear.

Flow Quirks

First, I still flow on paper - not the computer - keep this in mind when it comes to speed of speech. I kill the environment in Policy by flowing each argument on a different page. Be kind and let me know how many pages to prepare in each constructive and an order to put existing flows in. I flow taglines over authors so, let me know what the author said (i.e. the tag) before you give me the analysis so I can find it on the flow.

Speed

SLOW DOWN ON TAGLINES AND IMPORTANT FACTS In the physical world if you ever go too fast I will throw down my pen and cross my arms. In the virtual world, I suggest you start slow because tech and internet speed has proven to be a barrier for spreading, but I will give you two warnings when you start skipping in and out or when you become unclear. After two, unless it’s an actual tech issue, I’ll stop flowing.

Timing

Prep time ends when you press "send" for the doc OR when the flash drive leaves your computer (or in PF when you stand to speak). That being said, I don’t time in rounds. You should be holding each other accountable.

Speaks

I generally start at 28 and work my way up or down. As a coach and a teacher I recognize and am committed to the value that debate should be an educational activity. Do not be rude, discriminatory, or abusive – especially if you are clearly better than your opponent. I won’t down you for running high quantity and high tech arguments against someone you are substantively better than, but I will tank your speaks for intentionally excluding your opponent in that way. It can only benefit you to keep the round accessible to all involved.

Argumentation

PF Specific

Nothing is "sticky." If it is dropped in summary I drop it from my flow and consider it a "kicked" argument or you "collapsed" into whatever was actually discussed. Do not try to extend an argument from rebuttal into Final Focus that was not mentioned in summary. I will not evaluate it. Don't run Kritiks - more info below

Framework

If you have it, use it. Don’t make me flow a framework argument and never reference it again or drop it in your calculations. LD: Be sure to tell me why you uphold your FW better than your opponent, why it doesn’t matter, or why your FW is superior to theirs. Do not ignore it.

Kicks

I’m fine with you kicking particular arguments and won’t judge it unless your opponent explains why I should, but it won’t be difficult for you to tell me otherwise.

Kritiks

LD/CX: If you aren’t Black, do not run Afropessimism in front of me. Period. End of story. In fact, if you are running any K about minorities (LGBTQ, race, gender, disabilities, etc.) and you do not represent that population you need to be VERY careful. I will notice the performative contradiction and the language of your K (Afropessimism is a great example) may sway my vote if your opponent asks. Anything else is fair game but you need to explain it CLEARLY. Do not assume I’ve read the literature/recognize authors and their theories (I probably haven't). You decided to run it, now you can explain it.

PF: Don't run this in front of me. You don't have time to do it well, flesh out arguments, and link to the resolution. I will most likely accept a single de-link argument from your opponents or a theory that Ks in PF is bad. For your own sake, avoid that.

Structural Violence

Make sure that you understand the beliefs/positions/plights of your specified groups and that your language does not further the structural violence against them. These groups are NOT pawns for debate and I will tank your speaks if you use them as such.

Theory

You can run it (minus disclosure), but if your impact is “fairness” you better explain 1) why it outweighs their quantitative impacts and 2) how what they are doing is so grossly unfair you couldn’t possibly do anything else. If you run this I will not allow conditionality. Either they are unfair and you have no ground, or you have ground and their argument is fine. Choose. Do not run theory as a timesuck.

Tricks

Strike me. I don’t know what they are, I will probably miss them – just like your opponent – and you and I will both be wasting our time on that argument.

Congress

My interpretation of Congress debate is a combination of extemporaneous speaking and debate. The sponsorship/authorship and first opposition speech should be the constructive speech for the legislation. The rebuttals should build on the constructives by responding to arguments made by the opposing side. Both styles of speech should:

1. Engage with the actual legislation, not the generalized concepts,
2. Have clear arguments/points with supporting evidence from reputable sources
3. Have a clear intro and conclusion that grabs the audience's attention and ties everything together
4. Articulate and weigh impacts (be sure to explain why the cost is more important than the lives or why the lives matter more than the systemic violence, etc.)

Rebuttal speeches should clearly address previous speeches/points made in the round. With that in mind, I will look more favorably on speeches later in the cycle that directly respond to previous arguments AND that bring in new considerations - I despise rehash.

Delivery of the speech is important - I will make note of fluency breaks or distracting movements - but I am mainly a flow judge so I might not be looking directly at you.

Participation in the chamber (motions, questioning, etc.) are things I will consider in final rankings and generally serve as tie-breakers. If two people have the same speech scores, but one was better at questioning they will earn the higher rank. Some things I look for in this area:

1. Are your questions targeted and making an impact on the debate of the legislation OR are they just re-affirming points already made?
2. Are you able to respond to questions quickly, clearly, and calmly OR are you flustered and struggling to answer in a consistent manner with the content of your speech?
3. Are you helping the chamber move along and keep the debate fresh OR are you advocating for stale debate because others still have speeches on the legislation?
4. Did you volunteer to give a speech on the opposite side of the chamber to keep the debate moving OR are you breaking Prop/Opp order to give another speech on the heavy side?

Presiding Officer

To earn a high rank in the chamber as the PO you should be able to do the following:

1. Follow precedence with few mistakes
2. Keep the chamber moving - there should be minimal pause from speech to questioning to speech
3. Follow appropriate procedures for each motions - if you incorrectly handle a motion (i.e. call for a debate on something that does not require it or mess up voting procedures) this will seriously hurt your ranking

Hello all!

I hope your tournament is going well and I am excited to be a part of it! I have been doing debate since I was a high schooler like you, so please, don't be worried about me keeping up.

That said- I appreciate good structural analysis in your flows, so do your best to sign post to keep things neat. Impacting out to something weighable will make my job, and consequently your job, much easier- so where you can, do! Try and define topic specific terms because you will have spent more time researching this than me (keep that in mind for most studies to- your speech may be my introduction to a study or term- so quantify what it means).

Above all else, and in regards to speaking point scores, I request that, to the best of your abilities, you practice good etiquette and class; remember you are debating the arguments, not your opponents (but don't be shy to defend your points or be assertive).

My ballot will likely come down to who can best provide a through-line in the flow for me to judge on, and a reason to weigh it above that of their opponents. Please remember that despite being your judge (and therefore judging you), I am rooting for you all the way, so try not to be too nervous.

At the end, if you have learned something, the day is worth it- and I commend you for your choice of activity.

Good luck!