CX(Policy) Debate

I LOVE direct clash, so if you can ensure that your arguments are responding to what's been presented in the round, then that will certainly be reflected in the speaker points for the round.
I prefer roadmaps to be short and concise. They do not need to be exaggerated, simply such as off-case then on-case, or off-case: 1T, 2DA, 1CP then moving to on-case. Throughout the round, I have always encouraged signposting. It ensures that your arguments end up on the flow where you want them to go, if you do not do this, then you run the risk of me putting it where I think it should go, and this could work against you. Take control of the round. Do not let me do this simply by signposting the argumentation throughout your speech.

T-Topicality
I have a low threshold on T for this resolution(22-23), so I would not spend much time on it past the constructive. Unless the AFF is truly not topical, which is difficult to imagine with the broadness of this year's topic. I would encourage addressing it and moving on to the NEG again unless the AFF is truly not topical and the violation is abundantly clear. Then, I probably won't be voting on this in the round.

DA-Disadvantage
In my personal opinion, this is the 2nd highest level of the debate that has been participated in for this topic. I love for the link-internal link chain to clearly show me how we get to whatever impact you advocate for throughout the DA(s) you run in the round. I would highly recommend impact analysis as the round progresses. Please know the difference between impact calc and impact weighing. Both are good. Just don't say you are doing an impact calc when you are actually doing impact weighing.

CP-Counterplan
I don't mind these, but want a clear explanation throughout the round as to why they can't be permed, what are the net benefits of doing it through the CP, and why the CP is competitive compared to the AFF. There are many ways for the AFF to answer the many different CPs that have come through on this resolution, and I have enjoyed the CP debate on this year's topic more than in previous years. For the NEG these take a ton of work for me to vote on, and for my ballot, it is not difficult for the AFF to answer them in the rounds.

K-Kritique
I will not interfere, but I do not spend much time, if any at all, with the literature, so you are going to have to do a ton of analysis...which, as a NEG Strat in my rounds, is probably a bad idea cause I tend to vote on clash and where that's happening. I'm not saying don't do it but be prepared to lose me quickly and lose my ballot quickly if the K does not make sense or has all the right elements to the argument.I think the most important part of this for you to see when it comes to K-Debate is that if this is your strat for the round to read a K. I will not reject the argument inherently, but want you to know I may not understand your argument at first and you may have to do more explanation and give more time when I am looking for DA and On-case position arguments. If you read this please make sure you have a complete K and are ready to explain the literature and how it is advocating for the change you want to see.

ON-CASE
THIS IS MY FAVORITE!!!! Especially this year, the abundance of evidence that generally links to the case that AFFs have to work through or that AFFs get to extend through the round has been incredible.

Realistically, I am looking for the stocks to be upheld, but want to make my decision based on those and what I believe will be the best policy in the round.

Last, I WILL NOT INTERFEER. I want you to enjoy the round, so read your evidence and debate your way. Please understand everything above is what I prefer to see in a round, and for me, the clash is the highest priority and the AFF burden to prove that policy is beneficial. Those are my two presumptions before the round ever begins, so whoever meets those and proves to me the policy is net beneficial or will lead to existential harm typically is who gets my ballot.

Speed, since that is what this question is really asking...I tend to err on the side of technical over articulate, as this is an incredibly technical event, and know how much time it has taken to develop that skill. That being said, POP THE TAG AND EVIDENCE TO ENSURE THAT IT MAKES THE FLOW...SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!!! I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO KNOW YOUR CIRCUIT AND THE EXPECTATIONS...

(I,E UIL/TFA/TOC/NSDA EXPECTATIONS)

I will warn you to watch me or my pen. If I am not flowing the round, then there is a high probability that I am not following along with you, and the only saving grace for you is the speech drop, file share, or email chain if there is one. Please be present in the round and observant that it could be the difference in your win or loss, simply because I could not understand your attempt at spreading.

Again, this is not to say you can't, but I would for sure slow down on taglines/claims. Pop the source or card information before going full howitzer in the warrants of the evidence.

LD Debate

I am as traditional as it gets. I tend to keep a more technical-based flow. Slow, pretty speaking, and thorough argumentation. I weigh heavily on the Value and Criterion clash. I love good voters at the end of the rebuttal phase. I do understand progressive argumentation but for the sake of LD, I would keep it to a minimum. Signpost well and keep off-time roadmaps brief. Even though I prefer traditional LD Debate, I understand the merit of research that comes with progressive LD, I will evaluate these rounds and am quite capable of doing so since I spend most of my fall semester judging policy rounds. I would encourage you to read my CX(Policy) paradigm if this is your style. It will better help you navigate these rounds. I will also caution you with called drops especially if it appears this strategy is being used just to grab a win, I believe that harms the education in the round and makes me less likely to warrant them as drops rather than a lack of information. I would prefer an analysis of why the arguments are still valid and voting issues in the round rather than just calling them drops or unanswered arguments. Again, I stress reading the CX event above this to get a better understanding of how I will evaluate the round.

Please tell me when and where I will vote to control my flow and the ballot. If you do this, it should be a good round for you. I can not emphasize enough that CLASH is crucial, and I will know if you do not interact with arguments made by you and your opponent. If you declare it as an offense and can justify this claim, it could win you the round!

Congress

When it comes to a congress chamber, I have found that I enjoy healthy debate and awareness in a chamber. What this means is that for a PO and the chamber to understand when the debate has begun to circle around and there are no new arguments being developed...It is probably time to move to a previous question. If you feel that you have a really strong speech to give, but it is the same argumentation that has already occurred, I would encourage you to make sure that you are working on elements of refutation to direct speakers in the chamber along with crystalizing how the arguments have worked throughout the chamber. If this is not the strategy, it will probably hurt you to just get up there and give another 3:00 speech, developing the same cycle of arguments in the chamber. I really enjoy it when the debate on items is well developed and students are aware enough to understand when it's over and should be moving to the previous question for the vote to get to the next item in the chamber.

I have found that my ranks tend to be evaluated from the following parameters, but I do not think this is by any means the only way I would evaluate a chamber.

1st Priority--- Effective PO Procedures and chamber management. I do believe the PO is one of the most influential characters in the chamber. It is your job to have a clean and clear understanding of the parliamentarian procedures, and it is your job to reinforce the rules of the chamber. I do expect you to know the rules of the circuit for the tournament so know the differences between UIL, TFA, and NSDA.

2nd Priority---Quality of Speeches

3rd Priority--- Activity in the chamber (total) This covers # of speeches, questions, and general participation for me in the chamber

I have found that most PO in my balloting history will start in the 3 positions, and your effectiveness in this position will dictate if you move up or down from this position. I do place a premium on speeches, as I still think this is the most important piece to the event, so it will be common for my ballot that the speakers are ranked higher than POs, but if this is done well can push them to the top of a chamber but it is harder for these characters in the chamber to get my 1s.

Extemp

The core question for extemp is how to get my 1. Or what is the difference between my 1 & 2?

My 1's are nearly perfect speakers, the fillers are minimal and you are doing all the extemp nuances that we are looking for in these speeches. Sources are incredibly important and more does not always equal 1 but it can be the difference. I am also looking for you to analyze and give me your insight into the topic. Working that in could be the difference between 1 & 2. Time could also be a factor in judgment. Know the rules between different circuits!

Interp

These are my weakest events to judge...That doesn't mean that I can't, just that I believe my qualifications are less in this event. I do place a premium on some of the speaking tactics over the theatrical elements (blocking). Not that I won't appreciate your movements and evaluate them throughout the performance, but it's not unheard of that someone who can tell an effective story and take me through their performance allowing me to feel what their performance is asking, will have better success with me over someone who uses blocking to communicate these moments throughout your performance. I would encourage you to utilize both throughout the performance as that is ideally what I am looking for in this performance. My best encouragement to you if I am judging your interp round, is to probably block less and what you do block, make sure that it has a purpose other than the "over-top" movements won't be as effective with me at the back of the room. I will evaluate and enjoy your performance, giving you feedback on things that I really enjoyed, and areas that I think you might want to consider growing the performance!

This is my third time judging LD. Please speak clearly and not too fast. Explain your arguments thoroughly and signpost in rebuttals. Also, be respectful to your opponents. Good luck and have fun!

debated for archbishop mitty 3 years, did LD

email is alexali000[@]gmail[.]com

important:

- no in-round discrimination.

general:

- arguments need a claim, warrant, and impact to be considered complete

- different arguments begin at different risks. some arguments are just less probable than others so you need to do more work to convince me of them

- tell me how i should evaluate the round and weigh

- signpost, number, explain, and slow down during rebuttals

Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Big Questions 2024

Without having coached it and seen what the topic literature looks like (or if it even exists), this seems like the worst topic I have ever judged. If there's a way to define "incompatible" that lends itself to interesting, balanced, and substantive debates, then by all means read it and emphasize how great your definition is. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the resolution isn't trivially true or false depending on the definitions, so a lot of time should be spent there.

Sections/State 2024 Updates

Not a new update per se, but read the traditional LD section of my paradigm to see what I consider the permissible limits of "national circuit" arguments in LD. TL;DR, uphold your side of the resolution "as a general principle".

I'm somewhat agnostic on the MSHSL full source citations rule -- I do think it's a good norm for debate without email chains, but if you want me to enforce it, that should be hashed out preround.

Rounds on this topic are difficult to resolve. It seems like most of them come down to cards with opposite assertions: status quo deterrence is working/failing, China can/can't fill in, etc, and I struggle to figure out who to side with when it comes down to different authors making different forecasts based on the same basic set of facts and a lot of uncertainty. I encourage you to think really, really hard about the story you're telling, the specific warrants in the pieces of evidence you read and how they interact with the assumptions being made by opposing authors, etc. Alternatively, finding offense that's external to these core issues (whether that's phil offense or a independent impact scenario) can be another way to clean up the round. As a reminder: tagline extensions are no good, and "my card says X" by itself is not a warrant -- it just means that one person in the entire world agrees with you.

General Info

• I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.

• I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).

• I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.

• As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.

• I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.

• As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.

• Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.

• I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.

• Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

Ks

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

• The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.

• Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".

• For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.

• I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.

• I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.

• Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).

• K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

• There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.

• Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.

• Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.

• I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.

• Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.

• Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

• In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).

• Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.

• I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.

• Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.

• There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.

• I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

• I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.

• Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.

• Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

T

• If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.

• Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.

• RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

• I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
• By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
• If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
• If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

• I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
• If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
• I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
• I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
• I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

• This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
• Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
• The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
• As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
• Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
• You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
• Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
• Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
• Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
• Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
• Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
• Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)

jorman.antigua@gmail.com

school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate

in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance

my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)

I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)

speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol

specifics...

impact your arguments (duhh)

Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...

counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case

dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios

k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for it...it is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...

preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...

framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)

theory: sure

short & sweet

#swag...have fun...do you...debate =)

San Diego State University Comm major

Current Trojan Debate Squad member (Policy Debate) 23/ '24

NDT / CEDA qual

Your work towards making your speeches clear for my flow will be reflected in my ballot.

Please include me in the email chain joaquinresell@gmail.com

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

What I Like

I've gotten a few notes from debaters that my paradigm is mostly about what I don't want to see, rather than what I do. In an attempt to remedy that, here is what I enjoy in a debate round.

Evidence Debate - I love when debaters actually engage with the internal warrants of their opponents evidence and arguments. Point out contradictions between pieces of evidence, expose evidence that is too specific or too general to apply, call out evidence that is just claims rather than warrants. Any engagement with evidence beyond "my opponent's evidence is wrong because my evidence is right" will greatly increase your chance of winning my ballot.

Meaningful Framework Debate - I love when debaters pick and choose their battles on framework and clearly impact the results of the framework debate to how I should evaluate impacts in the round. You will not lose my ballot solely for conceding your opponent's framework. Not all rounds need to have a framework debate, even with different values/value criteria, if those frameworks evaluate impacts in roughly the same way or if both debaters have the same impacts in the round (eg, people dying). Debaters who recognize that and focus on the areas of framework that will actually change how I judge arguments, then follow up with an explanation of what I should look for in evaluating the round based on that change will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Internal Consistency - I love when debaters commit to their positions. Many arguments, especially the more unusual philosophical arguments require commitment to a whole host of concomitant beliefs and positions. Embrace that. If someone points out that utilitarianism requires defending the interests of the majority over the minority, be willing to defend that position. If someone points out that Kantianism doesn't permit you to lie to a murderer, don't backtrack - explain it. Don't be afraid to say that extinction does not outweigh everything else. Conversely, if you argue that prediction of the future is impossible in order to answer consequentialism and then cite scientific authors to support your claims, I will be much less likely to believe your position. A debater who is committed and consistent in their ethical position will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Argument by Analogy - I love when debaters use analogies to explain or clarify their own positions, or to expose inconsistencies, absurd statements or flaws in their opponents arguments. I think analogies are underutilized as a method of analytical argumentation and debaters willing to use analogies to explain or undermine arguments have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Comparative Weighing - I love when debaters specifically compare impacts when weighing in the round. Rarely does a debater win every single argument in the round and weighing significantly assists me in making a decision when there are multiple impacts for both sides. While I like weighing arguments in the vein of "This argument outweighs all others in the round" more than no weighing at all, a more specific and nuanced analysis along the lines of "this argument outweighs that argument for these reasons" (especially when it explains the weighing in the specific context of the framework) will give a debater a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card in which case I will ask to see evidence after the round.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no action, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate. As with other arguments, I will evaluate a LARP round but will have a low-threshold to vote on evidentiary arguments, link/brink severance, and framework exclusion.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if no argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world or in debate. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts. That said, I will vote on pre-fiat Ks - a good metric for my preference is whether your link is specific to the aff's performance in this round or if it could link to any affirmative case on the topic (or any topic). If you're calling out specific parts of the affirmative performance, that's fine.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Totally fine to run. I have a slight bias towards genericist positions over specificist ones, eg "a means any" rather than "a means one".

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA because it doesn't link to the aff.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts because performance cannot be erased.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to risk of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true and the alts are often unclear. I will vote on them but run at your own risk.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments. I don't believe that disclosure as a norm is beneficial to debate and I see it used to exclude non-circuit debaters far more often than I see debaters who are genuinely unable to engage because they could not predict their opponent's arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

I have been judging LD debates for over four years, with occasional experience in Parli and PF formats. I prioritize clarity, substance, and respect in rounds. If any technical terms are used, please provide clear definitions. I value substantive contentions and points over intimidation or mockery. I flow during the round to track the arguments.

While I remain open-minded and impartial, I expect debaters to uphold the principles of sportsmanship and respect throughout the round. Mockery and intimidation have no place in constructive debate.

Impact calculus is highly appreciated as it helps in evaluating the significance of arguments.

Please include me (karthikakrishnna@gmail.com) in any email chains for reference. Best of luck to all debaters!"

If you need any further adjustments or clarifications, feel free to let me know!

"Debate well. Don't go fast. Don't make frivolous or untrue arguments. You have a prescribed debate topic for a reason, so debate the topic."

That is my "grumpy old man" paradigm.

In reality, I am open to considering lots of arguments from a wide variety of philosophical and practical perspectives. My biggest issue is that I am not great with speed. I don't love it, and even if I did, I don't handle it well in a debate round. I am willing to listen to pretty much any argument a debater wants to make, but I won't evaluate the argument particularly well if its fast. Also, the more critical the argument and the more dense the literature, the slower you will need to go for me to follow you.

I do have a few pet peeves.

1) No Tricks. Tricks are for kids - I'll absolutely intervene and toss out an "I win, you lose" extension of a random sentence from the framework or an underview. Don't make it a voter or it will likely be you that loses the ballot. Debate the round, don't just try to escape with the W.

2) No EXTENSIONS THROUGH INK - if you are going to extend something, you better have answered the arguments that sit right next to them on the flow BEFORE you extend them. You have to be responsive the attacks before you can claim victory on an argument.

3) Don't shoehorn EXTINCTION impacts into topics that are clearly NOT going to link to extinction. For example, there was a topic on standardized testing a few years back. Policy style impacts of cases and disads should have been about the effectiveness on standardized testing in terms of educational outcomes, college outcomes, and overall productive individuals and societies. Instead, debaters went for the cheap impact and tried to claim that keeping standardized tests will cause nuclear war and extinction. The syllogism had about 7-8 moving parts and at least three skipped steps. It was a bad argument that sometimes won because the opponent wasn't good enough to challenge the link chain or sometimes lost because smarter debaters beat it back pretty soundly. Either way, the debate was poor, the argument selection was poor, and I was not inclined to give those debaters good speaks even if they won.

4) Only read THEORY because there is an honest-to-God violation of a pretty established norm in debate, not because it's your "A-strat" and you just like theory. I like Fruit Loops, but I don't eat them at every meal. Use theory when appropriate and be prepared to go all-in on it if you do. If the norm you are claiming is so important and the violation is so egregious, then you should be willing to be the farm on your theory argument to keep your opponent from winning the debate.

I want to see good debate. I think the four things listed above tend to make debate bad and boilerplate. If you disagree, you are welcome to strike me.

I prefer when you road map the debates and speak clearly. I am not a fan of spreading.

Public Forum paradigm

I now coach speech, but I have also coached Congress and have judged PF and LD for the past 15 years in Ohio, Louisiana, and the national circuit. I never competed, but you know what they say about those who can’t (or don't).

I like to hear a well organized case—I value clarity and consistency. I prefer depth of analysis of one or two contentions rather than superficial treatment of a long list. Supporting evidence is important, but not as important as logical argumentation. Be sure that evidence actually supports or refutes and is not just thrown in to provide a source. I tend to vote on the arguments that involve impact and scope.

Clash is essential—nothing more deadly than listening to dueling evidence with no actual interaction. Do as much damage as you can to your opponent’s case and defend you own—sounds really basic, but that’s what I like to hear.

Crossfire is a time to ask questions—please do not use it to advance or restate your case (unless, of course, it pertains to a question you’ve been asked). I like to see teamwork in grand cross—please do not monopolize and let your partner get a word in edgewise.

I enjoy a nice extemporaneous delivery that demonstrates some real (or feigned) enthusiasm for your argument. Please do not spread—it is not impressive, and if I can’t follow you, the quality of your argument suffers.

And finally I value civility, courtesy, and respect—please don’t disappoint.

Lincoln Douglas paradigm

Similar to my PF standards, I am pretty traditional. I like a case that is well organized, clear, and consistent. Supporting evidence and depth of analysis are important, but logical arguments are essential. I really enjoy a good framework debate, and I appreciate hearing voting issues--tell me why I should vote for you. Why are your impacts more important?

I like an extemporaneous and conversational delivery. I am okay with some speed, but no spreading, please--if I can't follow you, I can't vote for you.

Civility, courtesy, and respect--always important.

Congress paradigm

Congress rankings are based on content (structure, evidence, clarity, analysis, clash) and delivery (articulation, fluency, vocal and physical expression, confidence/poise). Most importantly who advanced the debate and contributed the most through the quality (not necessarily the quantity) of his/her/their speeches and questions?

Civility, courtesy, and respect apply here as well.

Congress- Speeches should be delivered at a rate of speed that a casual listener would be able to understand and follow the argumentation. Evidence is necessary and should support every argument in a speech. In order to stand out and rank higher, written speeches should be adapted to include clash from previous speeches and offer something new to the debate. Debaters should offer speeches that forward the debate and do not simply rehash previously stated arguments. A PO should run a transparent and efficient round with a clearly offered way to track precedence and recency.

Extemp- State the topic word for word verbatim, I am looking for strong argumentation to support your answer as well as current and credible evidence. Competitors who have an in depth analysis of the topic will rank higher, fluff and generic answers will rank lower. This is a speaking event and you need to have conversational speed as well as humor to do well. Funny and pop culture AGDs are my favorite.

LD- I am an old school trad judge. I can keep up with moderate speed but if you start spreading and I put my pen down you are not in a good spot. If I can't flow I can't judge you. K and theory aren't my favorite but simple and common K like ROB I am familiar with, extinction arguments are my least favorite, they seem lazy unless you have a really compelling and interesting argument to go with it. Judge adaptation is crucial in LD success. I am not the most tech oriented judge so if you are pulling tricks make them clear and easy to follow for me, I am open to weird stuff but it had better be accessible to me.

For (DI, DUO) - Subtlety is the key, I don't need you to scream and shout to get emotion across. I'm not against screaming, but it should be during appropriate moments during the piece and build over time. At no point should you jump from deadly quiet and calm to intense and screaming. Gradually build the emotion. Show me the tension and intensity over time. Screaming when you erupt during the climax is perfectly acceptable. Further, intensity can be shown without screaming, crying, or yelling. The quiet moments of the piece are usually the ones I find most powerful. THINK and REACT to what you are saying. Emotion should come nearly effortlessly when you "are" your piece. Don't "act" like the mom who lost her daughter in a school shooting, BE that mom! Transitions and timing are SUPER IMPORTANT, DON'T RUSH!!!

For (HI, DUO) - Facial expressions, characterization, and blocking take the most importance for me. I want to see each character develop once you introduce it throughout the piece. Even if the character doesn't appear all the time, or only once or twice throughout the script, I want to see that each character is engaged throughout the piece itself. Most importantly, please remember that humor without thought is gibberish. Jokes are said for a reason - use facial expressions to really hone in on character's thought and purpose. For example, if a character A says a joke and character B doesn't get it, I should see character B's confused reaction. I will also tend to reward creative blocking and characterization. However, note that blocking should not be overly distracting.

For (POI, PRO, POE) - Regarding emotion, facial expressions, and character development, see the above text in the two paragraphs above regarding DI and HI. Personally, I place a little more emphasis on binder tech - the more creative the better! I think binder events are the synthesis of good binder tech, good script selection, and good facial expressions/emotion. Obviously, it's harder to do, since you have multiple characters in multiple parts of your speech and each have a distinct mood and personality. I prefer POI to read like an OO with someone else's words, give me a really concrete problem solution.

Cypress Bay 2020

FIU- current

I've been with Champion Briefs since the 2020-2021 season

I'd like to be on the chain :) garrett.bishop2577@gmail.com

Policy note - I'm good for any kind of debate you want to do, but don't judge the event super often, so I'm not going to get most topic jargon.

1 - K/Performance, esp high theory (but I also think T is true)

1-2 - Policy v Policy

2 - Dense idptx positions

3 - Phil you can explain well

4 - Theory heavy positions, besides T

5 - Dense phil you can't explain very well

Public forum stuff is near the bottom

#deBAYbies

Super duper short pre-round version: If you read Ks, I should be a high pref. If you read tricks and/or phil, I should be a low pref. I'm more familiar with the pomo side of Ks. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I say probably a lot. I generally don't flow author names, and I wasn't the best at flowing while I was competing. So... slow down on extensions a lil bit?

You can debate, really, however you want to debate. However, help me help you, and don't paraphrase your evidence. Reading essay style cases can also be hard to follow, so do with that information whatever you will.

Non T positions are cool, extra T and fxT are chill absent theory. I promise you can read whatever you want.

If that didn't help, you have questions, and you don't want to read my rambling, just shoot me an email. If it's before a tournament, I can't promise as to how quickly I'll answer, but at tournaments I have my email open 24/7.

Small 2023 update: I'm pretty okay with listening to phil/tricks positions, I think. However, you must be aware that this is not a branch of theory I think about often, or a form of debate that I coach or did while I was in high school. Phil v K debate is probably an uphill battle to win. You also must slow down when reading the big/abstract positions, and you should explain implications to me. If you read phil/tricks, I want you to explain it to me like I'm your younger sibling -I will not understand the phil buzzwords and jargon. ALSO, unrelated: 1AC theory makes me feel icky. You get infinite prep, you shouldn't have to read theory in your 1AC. Just debate. I believe in you.

The above is still true, especially the 1AC theory stuff, but after several months of doing prefs for my Cypress kids... there are a lot of people on the circuit now that are outright hostile towards phil stuff, or even tricks debate and this is kind of disappointing to me. Read the arguments that you want to read in front of me, but you should know that there are certain levels of explanation that you need to hit for me to vote on something - the brightline for voting on a dropped 1AC spike is going to be a lot higher for me than a fully fleshed out 1NC DA + case answers.

Longer version

• Some of the judges/coaches who particularly influenced me and my debate style during my career include: Daniel Shatzkin, Alex Landrum, Aleksandar Shipetich, Allison Harper, Sawyer Emerson, Mitchell Buehler, Claire Rung, Rob Fernandez

• Defaults: Role of Debate > Judge > Ballot; comparative worlds first; competing interps; drop the debater; presume negative; reps/pre-fiat > literally everything else

• Background + my thoughts on the (negative) K: My career started at the Samford Debate Institute in the policy lab where I learned how to disad/counterplan/case debate. At my first tournament of the year, I turned around and read a death good aff and haven't turned back from the K since. In my senior year alone, I read: Anthro, Baudrillard (a few variations of this one), Dark Deleuze, Abolition, and Security. I don't think kritiks are really ever cheating unless they create a perfcon. I'm far more familiar with the post-modernism/high theory side of K debate over the identitarian side, though I have read a considerable amount of literature on both sides. Other Ks that I haven't read in round, but know the literature well enough include: Psychoanalysis, Afropessimism, Wake Work, settler colonialism, and queer pessimism, among others. You'll get +0.1 speaks if you use correct human/nonhuman animal rhetoric. Please don't read a K you don't understand just because I like Ks :)

• The (affirmative) K: I read these from pretty much day 1. There was only one instance in which I didn't (looking at you, UK), and that was a bit of a mess. Similar to the negative section, try not to read confusing (but fun) K affs just because I like them. It's more painful to listen to someone butcher a Deleuze aff than a hard right policy aff. I primarily read Fiction theory my senior year, and I love it more than anything, so you get brownie points if you also read these :)
• - - FW v K affs: It is often a true argument, and I will definitely vote on it. I think that TVAs are overhyped and to win on one, it should definitely solve at least 80% of the aff. That said, I think that affirmative debaters often just don't know how to beat back framework with their aff. You should leverage case v fw. You read six minutes of dense theory. You should use it.
• - - K v K affs: I think these are really cool. I don't really know if I know some of the identity lit well enough to judge something like afropess v afropess, but if you can explain the nuances well enough, then by all means go for it. The Baudrillard v Baudrillard debate was one of my favorites to be a part of in high school.
• - - Counterplans v K affs: I think these are often underutilized by debaters, myself included. The glitter bomb cp is legitimate. No questions asked.
• - - Plan affs - I like these. I think they're cool and very fun. Not really my style but that doesn't mean I hate them or won't vote on them. I think if you're gonna go for the policy option, you should just read a hard right plan with like a space-col advantage. I feel like the competitive advantage that soft-left policy affs traditionally got access to in HS Policy debate is kind of moot in LD because of the prevalence of both K debate as well as phil debate.

• - - Case debate: This is where the good stuff is. Also a great place to flex and/or show some personality and not be a robot. In my own words, "This inherency is awful 5head, cut a better card."
• - - CP/DA v Case: please don't say ceepee or deeaye, stop trying to be edgy and cool. Same thing goes for "arg" instead of argument. Just say the word pls. But yes these are cool. I like these. I didn't read these but I liked these a lot.
• - - Impact turns v Case: As long as it's not oppression/bigotry good, go for it. ffs i read death good lol
• - - T/th v Case: If there's an abuse, there's an abuse. If not wearing shoes is abusive to you, then we have different concepts of abuse. Do with that what you will. If you have to ask, "Is x shell frivolous?" The answer is probably yes. I probably don't think that T is really ever an RVI. The only feasible justification for an RVI on T that I can possible imagine is if you cross applied abuse from other shells. But eh who knows?
• - - K v Case: Yes please :) This was my favorite debate to have. I feel like there are the most potential layers to interact on. There's the case page itself, framing, the K, and anything else you might throw in there. "K bad judge help" isn't a legit argument. If the 1NC is one off, you shouldn't concede the entirety of the 1AC. I made this mistake a few times; it's not the move. Clash of civs is goated and I will not argue with you on this.

- Misc:

1. If I laugh I promise it's not at you

2. I enjoy it when two debaters clearly get along

3. Please don't be mean to younger debaters

4. R e s p e c t e a c h o t h e r

5. Do your own thing and do it well

6. Don't be afraid to ask questions

7. I have much less patience for frivolous arguments the farther we get into the tournament.

8. If you have any questions about the things that I read in particular, feel free to email me.

- Those Chart things because I think they're cool and fun

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

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

Condo ---------X------------------------------------Not Condo

Clarity -------------X-------------------------------Speed

Bowdreearrd X-------------------------------------------- Balldrilard

Ampharos X---------------------------------------------Literally any other Pokemon

A2/AT ------------------------------------------X-- A healthy, inconsistent mix in every file

A2 --------X------------------------------------ AT

Analytics in the doc -X------------------------------------------- A blank text file

Extending warrants ----------X---------------------------------- Extending authors

Jokes in the speech -----X--------------------------------------- Hello it's me, debate robot #6

I am a big meanie -------------------------------------------X- I am not a big meanie

Getting the shakes before a drop X-------------------------------------------- I don't understand this reference, grow up

Starship Troopers ----------X---------------------------------- Dune

The alt is rejection ------------------------------------------X-- Part of the alt might necessitate rejecting the aff

Defense ------------------------------------------X-- Offense

Please don't dodge questions in cross

Public Forum

I have a lot of feelings about this event. A lot of them boil down to, "If you want me to judge this round like a tech judge, you should probably follow the norms of technical debate." This means that I'll pull the trigger very easily on theoretical arguments that justify things that are "normal" in other forms of debate. Id est, disclosure and paraphrasing bad. It's possible to win disclosure bad or paraphrasing good in front of me, but it will for sure be an uphill battle.

I'm okay with speed.

I'm good with technical arguments.

Please don't read Ks or other "tech" arguments just because I like them. It's more painful to listen to them read poorly. That said, if you know the arguments, then feel free to read them.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them, I promise I'm not as mean as this paradigm likely makes me out to be.

This is perpetually going to get longer and longer as I see things that I need to address. I'll shorten it eventually, I promise.

Pronouns: they/she (either is fine)

Please just call me Katherine.

Email: kbleth976@stkate.edu

I have coached at Rosemount High School since 2011 (policy until 2019, currently LD). I primarily judge LD nowadays, but I’ll include my opinions on policy positions in the off chance I have to judge a policy round. I’m sure it will mostly be an overlap.

Etiquette & Common Questions

1. I don't care if you sit or stand, where you sit, etc. Your comfort matters most to me.
2. Being rude to your opponent or to me will never bode well for you.
3. Bigotry will absolutely never be tolerated.
4. @ circuit debaters:If your opponent is clearly non-circuit/more local/more traditional...it does not look good to me for you to spread them out, read a bunch of crazy theory/arguments, etc. when they clearly will not be able to keep up nor have anything to say. I'm not saying to completely match their style/level nor abandon what you like to do, but try to at least be kind/understanding in CX and potentially slow down. Steamrolling people and then being condescending about it will never result in good speaks. To me, good debate is educational and fair. Keep that in mind when debating in front of me!

Spreading

1. tl;dr I have no problem with spreading and can flow it fine.
2. However, if you are not clear, that's not my problem if I can't flow it. I am not going to call out "clear!" because it is your responsibility to be clear.
3. The best way to be clear is to slow down on your tag/author. There is no reason for you to spread tags the same speed you spread everything else.
4. Sign-posting will honestly solve most problems. Just saying "and," "next," "1/2/3" etc. will make it significantly easier to flow you.
5. I don't flow speech documents. I flow you. If I didn't catch it in your speech, but it was in your speech doc - not my problem.
6. I hate when people spread theory/analytics. I'm not saying to read it at a normal speed, but slow down.

Paragraph long tags

I hate tags that are a paragraph long. I flow by hand. Tags that are 1-2 sentences? Easy. Anything beyond that? How am I supposed to write any of that down? Can you not summarize your argument in 2 sentences? If you write tags like this, I am not the judge for you. If you get me as a judge anyway, see my thoughts on spreading. Slow down on your tags.

"I did not understand your argument" is a possible RFD from me

To be fair, I've only given this as an RFD maybe 2 times. But still. It is on you to properly explain your argument, especially if it is kritikal/theoretical. You need to explain it in your own wordsin a way that is understandable to your opponent and to me. I'm familiar with a decent amount of K lit, but not a lot. I primarily judge on the local Minnesota circuit and attend a few national circuit tournaments a year. I don't know all the authors, all the Ks, etc. Debate is about communication. You need to properly communicate your arguments. I'm not reading your speech documents. Act like I only know the basics. This sort of explanation can happen in CX and rebuttals when answering questions and getting more into "explaining the story" and voters. It's okay to just read your cards as is in the constructive, but beyond that, talk to me as if I'm hearing this for the first time.

Topicality/Theory

1. Proper T/theory has a clear interpretation/violation/standards/voters. Obviously if it's condo theory, just standards/voters is fine. If pieces of this are missing, I am disinclined to care as much.
2. Clash. If there are two separate shells that don't actually interact, which do I prefer? Compare interps. Compare standards.
3. Voters. You need to tell me why I vote on your theory. Why is it a voter? Was their abuse - a loss of fairness, education, etc.? Personally I'm more inclined to vote on theory if a proof of abuse is providedorthe case for potential abuse is adequately made. Is it drop the arg, drop the debater? Is it a priori, is it just another voter in the round? How do I weigh it? I need to know these answers before I make a decision.
4. This is a personal thing, but I just hate theory for the sake of theory (I don't necessarily feel the same way about T, but that is much more applicable to policy than LD. I think T debates are good in policy period.). I do love theory/T when done well, but if it's showing up in the rebuttals, there better be an actual reason why I care. If you're not actually checking any abuse or potential abuse, then where are we going?
5. If you go for T/Theory in the 2NR/2AR: Then you better go all out. I hate when people go for non-theory and theory at the same time. If you go for a DA and T - which one am I weighing? Which one comes first? If you never articulate this, I'm going to take this as the green light to just vote on the DA if I think there is more offense there.

Disclosure Theory

Unless there has been genuine abuse and you literally had no ground in the round, I strongly dislike disclosure theory. I've never seen it done in a way that actually checks abuse. Maybe this is because I come from policy where I've never seen anyone actually go for disclosure - I just don't get it. If this is your strat, don't pref me.

Tricks

No thanks!

K/Methodology/Performance Cases

1. I've voted on all sorts of fun things. I'm completely open to anything.
2. Provide a role of the ballot and reasons why I should prefer your RoB.
3. Be prepared for a framework (not LD framework - framework on how we do debate) debate. I've seen so many K affs (in policy) fail because they aren't prepared for framework and only attack it defensively. Provide a framework with its own voters. Why should we adopt or at least allow your methodology? I will have no qualms voting on framework even if you are winning your K proper.

Kritiks

See earlier remarks on tags, explaining concepts, etc. I don’t like vague links on Ks or super vague alts. Please link it specifically to the aff. Provide a solvency mechanism for your alt, and please explain how exactly it solves.

CPs/DAs/etc

No specific remarks in the realm of policy. I am fine with these in LD. I am okay with more policy-like LD rounds, and I’m very familiar with these positions.

Framework (LD)

Framework is very important to me. Surprisingly, I prefer more traditional LD rounds (framework, contentions) over the policy ones, but my preference doesn't impact how I view one over the other. Link your impacts into your framework, weigh frameworks, etc. It plays a significant role in how I vote.

Random thought on util

I am very tired of hearing "utilitarianism justifies slavery." I'm putting this here as an opportunity for you to look into why that is a bad argument and look into better ways to attack util. This is not to say I won't evaluate that argument, especially if your opponent doesn't respond to it and if you explain it fine. I just think it's very poor and easily dismantled.

Overviews/Underviews

I personally really like overviews when done well. I like overviews that are brief and simply outline the voters/offense you have before you go onto the line-by-line. Overviews do not need to be more than 30 seconds long. Underviews are for posers.

At the end of the day, I’m open to any position and argument. For the longest time, my paradigm just said "I'll vote for anything," and it's still true to an extent. Well-executed arguments can override my preferences. I want you to have fun and not feel like you have to severely limit yourself to appease me. If you have specific questions, please ask me. Happy debating!

General: I am an 'old-school' former LDer so I judge rounds based on the values and substance of the arguments. Evidence is important but I am not going to be swayed if all you can say regarding an opponent's contention is "they only presented two cards of evidence but i clearly have three" or "my evidence is clearly better because it came from this scientific journal as opposed to this one." Unless the source of the evidence is clearly unreliable, I expect debaters to address the substance of the underlying arguments. At the end of the day, LD is about value propositions not plans or statistics and that is what I will base my decisions on. In other words, LD should prioritize the WHY not necessarily the HOW.

Pacing: You may speak as fast as you need to but please be understandable. If you go so fast that I cannot understand what you are saying, I will not flow it and if I do not flow it, I will not be able to judge you for it.

Roadmaps: I do allow off-time roadmaps - just be clear you are offering one before you start so I don't trigger my speech timer. Once that timer begins, I do not stop it. Similar to my comment about pacing, it's important that you are clear about where on the flow your comments/arguments/rebuttals are being directed. If I have to guess at what you are responding to, I may put in the wrong spot on my flow. This can lead to situations where arguments appear dropped or don't appear to truly rebut what it was flowed with. Providing clear signposts during your speech can save everyone a lot of headaches here.

End of Speech Cut-offs: When I tell you time, you may finish your sentence quickly. If you attempt to abuse this by stretching out your sentence or quickly fitting in more than the end of your sentence, I will suspend this privilege and, depending on how egregious the attempt, dock speaker points.

Who to Address in Speeches: Remember that you should be addressing me (ie the judge) during your speeches, NOT your opponent. At the end of the day, your arguments are being presented to me for judging so avoid things like "You said..." during your speeches.

Hi! I am a parent judge and this is my 2nd year of judging LD. I have only judged traditional debates therefore, I ask to keep the round traditional. Please do not spread I won't be able to understand you, just speak at a normal pace I will take off speaks and it will hurt my ability to judge the round. I am more familiar with contention level debate or advantages and disadvantages. Please do not make the round a philosophy debate I won't understand it just stick to value, criterion, and justifications. I really value your speaking ability when making my decision. Conclusion and Weighing also go a long way so make time for it when you can.

I think this goes without saying but please be respectful and don't use any harmful language in round.

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)



General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.


Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.


I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

As a former news reporter, speaking skills and communications are very important to me.

In the real world, understanding is key to getting a point across. If one is speaking too quickly, it can be difficult to process and come to an educated conclusion.

Note: Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; the TLDR paradigm is the third paragraph in this top section. Everything in this paradigm has a logical justification; ask me if something doesn't make sense and I'll be happy to explain.

Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but I'm familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from Northland Christian HS in 2020 and UT Austin in 2022 with a psych major phil minor. I'm currently a 3L at Texas Law. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school (and have been judging/coaching consistently since graduating), so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of LD. Add me to the chain at abroussard@utexas.edu. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!

TLDR paradigm: I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritik-al debate, etc.; by nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent which means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level; my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change, just make the proper arg. Please see "important" section below.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Important Stances that May Deviate from the Norm:

- I default args must be immediately sequential and/or allow for a sequential response ("new 2nr args permissible" and "new 2ar args impermissible outside of answers to new 2nr args)" are some noteworthy implications to this); this is my default because any other standard allows for the 2ar to always win by either answering arguments from the 1nc conceded by the 1ar/extended in the 2nr in the 2ar or by making new 2ar uplayers (i guess this means my actual default is against any paradigmatic stance that theoretically allows either side to win every debate because that defeats the purpose of the ballot/there being an adjudicator); please ask me about this point if there is any confusion before the debate starts (also note this is not a rigid stance, just a default)

- every claim needs a warrant, even conceded arguments (I don't presume conceded arguments are true); alternatively, if you don't want to extend the warrant for conceded claims, an explanation of why conceded arguments should be considered true is acceptable (there's no justification for the claim without the extension of a warrant or an explanation of why concessions matter)

- if you go for substance and don't read a fw/both debaters are winning offense under their fw but neither explain which fw comes first/no one extends a fw, I'll vote on presumption absent an uplayer (same goes for voters on t/theory)

- I presume: neg if it's aff v squo (bc the post-fiat world of the aff changes the squo); aff if it's aff v generic post-fiat cp/alt (bc the post-fiat world of the neg is further from the squo); neg if it's aff v pic or "reject the aff"/pre-fiat advocacy (bc the post-fiat world of the aff is further from the squo); neg if both debater's are winning pre-fiat offense under a single fw (bc the aff hasn't met their burden of proving the aff is a good idea, it's like a conceded adv vs a conceded disad); aff fw is true if both debaters are winning offense under their respective fw but don't contest the other's fw (bc the neg burden is to disprove the aff fw or disprove the aff substance under the aff fw and they haven't met either burden)

- if you don't extend your plan text/advocacy in some way it's kicked; in other words, you must extend your advocacy/plan text if you are going for a postfiat link/impact turn (one commonly applicable implication of this is if the 2ar goes for postfiat link/impact turns without extending the advocacy/plan text, it no longer defends the plan nor accesses offense from the turns)

-I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the antithesis of debate; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similarly discriminatory I will not drop them unless you say something about it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is report them to tab after the round and give them god awful speaks. Just call them out for being unethical.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Miscellaneous:

- tech>>>truth

- I will vote on literally anything when given a framing metric and justification

- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)

- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation

- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls, reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)

- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly

- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear

- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings

- flex prep and joint cross examination are fine

- have a localized recording; absent one, you risk losing whatever content was missed due to tech error (ig hope your opponent is cool with a redo)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

LARP- 2 to 3 (depending on density)

Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 2

LARP- 3

note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP, it's just not my highest preference

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy

Plans:

- Love these please know what your own plan says though

- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it could be hard to beat back

- the solvency section is important for plans, if you don't have one it's gonna be rough

Cps:

- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than one is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple cp debates)

- Any cp is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on

- I default condo bad but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks), you just have to be technically ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo cps just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)

- I treat perms like condo advocacies because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you

Das:

- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive cp makes this position much better

- the more unique the da the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil/High Theory

- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is lower/higher than any other argument

- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory author

- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of ld

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks

General:

- poems/music/art/performance can be offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)

Fw:

- should have a ROB and/or ROJ

- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad

Links:

- please don't read links that you yourself link into

- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topic/omission links

- I am comfortable voting off state/omission links, they're just boring

Impacts:

- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves

Alt:

- explain plz; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism, etc.)

- please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression, it looks bad

Overviews:

- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way

- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

T/Theory/Tricks

General:

- literally my favorite the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing

- friv is fantastic

Interps:

- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets/indicts

Violations:

- have them and extend them in the next speech

Standards:

- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever

- the more the merrier

- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier

Voters/paradigm issues:

- I generally default competing interps unless otherwise specified

- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, fun, etc. matter)

Tricks:

- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)

- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well

- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult/potentially imnpossible to win for you

- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, paradoxes, afc, acc, aprioris, etc. (idk how else to say i'll vote on literally any trick/arg generally)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

- I will grant a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it's extended (or reasons are made as to why an extension isn't necessary)

- if no ties are allowed on the ballot I technically am unable to perform "give both debaters 30 speaks" and i'll evaluate like i normally would; if you know no ties are allowed/are uncertain if ties are allowed, spec 30/29.9 rather than 30s bc that's always permissible on tab (and i'll give the 30 to whoever would be ahead under my typical speaks evaluation unless told otherwise)

- I generally give speaks based on strategic decision making>fluency (and will try to justify the deductions if asked, although ultimately they're always on some level arbitrary)

- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is/report to tab

- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30 unless the tournament has a specified structure; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate a local like I would a nat circuit

- more leniency for novice debates

- If you make me laugh you're definitely getting a speaks inflation but this is rare and it has to be genuine

- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format (i hardly ever clear anyways)

ONLINE: you must send docs. I am asking that you don’t spread. It’s hard to hear over the computer.

General

Add me to all email chains: colebrown131@gmail.com. My pronouns are he/him or they/them. Please let me know if you need anything or have questions at any time. Tag team CX is fine. You should time yourself and ideally your opponents to ensure fairness.

Spreading and Evidence

I've had a lot of questions about these things so I'm going to split them off into their own paragraph. I don't mind spreading, but I have ADHD which makes writing down from hearing difficult. It's also been four years since I've regularly flowed policy debate. I will not penalize you for going as fast as you want, but I may not be able to flow your analytics or taglines that are being spread (speaking fast is always fine). You are fine spreading through the constructives on shared docs as all I'm listening for is to make sure it matches the doc. Please feel free to ask about this at any point in the round. I prefer quality over quantity and I don't buy blippy/unwarranted extensionsso there's a significant disadvantage to going at a pace that would make it difficult for me to write this down anyways.

I strongly prefer that evidence be shared with me and your opponent(s). NLD and PF are exempted, and if you can't please let me know. For elimination rounds of any kind, this isn't optional.

NO FRIVOLOUS THEORY OR ANYTHING ELSE TO GAME ROUNDS.I love theory and tricks, but I won't be legalistic about voting on them if I don't feel like they're in good faith. Don't be put off by this I'm just tired of having to vote down teams for reading 10+ theory args.

I only listen to CX to hold you accountable and to potentially gain context on something I'm confused about. If you want it to be flowed you need to say it in a speech.

Policy

I have competed in policy for four years so I am okay with you running whatever you want (as long as it is professional/functional). Overviews/underviews and clear signposting are important. All evidence introduced must be on docs shared.

I am very willing to vote on any theory argument, but I will also just ignore theory obviously run as time skews especially, but not only, if the opponent points that out. Ts, FW, and properly created CPs are too rare. DAs, Ks, and K affs are fine. Weighing of impacts directly is absolutely critical to winning rounds. I have nothing against nuclear war impacts, but if you're conceding the probability of an extinction impact while weighing it against your own policy impacts, you've done something wrong (this is just an example).

LD

I haven't competed in LD but I've been judging it this year. I am fine with whatever you run, as long as it is professional and functional. Read the policy section if you are debating progressive. I appreciate a good framework round but I am frustrated when both sides use the same value and fail to notice this. Clash is important. If you don't specifically weigh impacts I'm going to struggle to make decisions especially when the framework debate is moot or not helpful in evaluating the round.

PF

I am a policy debater so I will primarily weigh your arguments as expressed, without reference to the quality of the presentation. Debating on the flow and fully fleshing out your arguments are important to me.

I am a new parent judge.

Last Updated:3/9/2024

Pronouns: They/Them

Background:

• Competed for 6 years: 4.5 in LD and 1.5 in Congress. Have been judging LD and Congress for 3 years now.

Overview:

• Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. If your goal is to speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments to exclude people, then this isn't a winning strategy for you. My suggestion would be to run topical arguments at a pace that is inclusive to all students. The more obscure the argument the more time you should spend on explaining it. Don't just throw out random words and assume I'll fill in the blanks for you.
• If you have questions about your ballot, feel free to ask me about it! My email address isBonBrynteson@gmail.com :)

Congress:

• This is a debate event. I reward debaters on their skill to rebuttal and crystal first and then constructives/authors. This is not to say I will not rank someone high if they give constructives but I do tend to vote for people who can mix it up and give different types of speeches/can analyze the round correctly.
• There should be no reason for you to have to put a trigger warning in your speech. We as the Parli and Judges are not able to leave the room like everyone else if you are saying stuff that could be triggering so please do not put us in that uncomfortable position. I promise you that you can make that same exact meaningful point without saying triggering things and if you cannot, that speaks more for what you need to personally work on in this activity.
• I can promise you that you will not be dropped because your speaking isn't "pretty enough" in my round :)
• I track precedence/recency in all sessions and flow.
• Remember all of your opponents, judges, and Parli are all human. The topics we are discussing may personally impact the people in the room with you. Be aware of what you are saying and the impact it can leave on others when leaving the round.

Notes for PO's:

• You will always start at being ranked 5 and will move up or down based on how well you perform. The reasoning for this is there are some POs with computer programs that will auto-order and PO for you which takes the entire skill out of the position.
• I personally do not like it when you share your PO sheet with the chamber. It is their job to also track, don't make their life easier. This is a competition.
• Please do not tell us to rank you. We are told to in judging meetings and TAB reminds us every round.
• The point of a PO is to disappear from the round. I should forget that you are next to me with how well you are running the room. Comments like "and the chair thanks you", "and we will never know the answer to that question" or any other sentence that is unneeded will poorly look on you in my eyes. You should be moving so efficiently that you can move speech to questioning to speech within seconds. In addition, the chair does not have emotions.
• I know this Paradigm is long and seems like a lot but please do not be scared to ask me questions! I have POed more times than I can count and it's nerve-racking. Let me help you succeed and grow so we can have a fun fast round.

LD:

• If you start running a K, I will just want to run back to my congress land. Please do not run them in my round.
• Please do not spread. I can not keep up and will be lost.
• I do not mind jargon or technical language but if you are being inaccessible to your opponent that is unfair to them and will reflect on you.
• Voters/Framework/Weighing are big points to me. If you weigh but lost framework, what are we actually weighing on? If you save more money but your opponents saves 100k lives, why do I care about someone missing rent for a month? Etc etc
• I love love love! a good CX

Overall I just want you kids to have fun. Let's work together to create a safe space in this round where everyone feels comfortable and enjoy the round! :D

Background: Head Coach at Robbinsdale Armstrong and Robbinsdale Cooper HS in Minnesota. There I coach LD, PF and Congressional Debate.

Most Important: Debate should be about comparing and weighing arguments. In LD (and optional in PF) there should be a criterion (standard) which argument are weighed through. The purpose of the criterion is to filter out arguments. So simply winning the criterion does not mean you win the debate. You should have arguments that link to the winning criterion and those arguments should be weighed against any opposing/linking arguments. If the debaters do not weigh the arguments, then you force the judge to do that weighing for you and that is never good.

Overall: Debate should be inclusive and available to all people. If your goal is to speak as fast as possible and run the most obscure arguments ever to exclude people, then this isn't a winning strategy for you. My suggestion would be to run topical arguments at a pace that is inclusive to all students. Speed within limits is ok. The more obscure the argument the more time you should spend on explaining it. Don't just throw out random words and assume I'll fill in the blanks for you. No need to ask if I want to be on the email chain, job of debate is to communicate the evidence to me.

Congressional Debate: Read everything above because it is still valuable information. Congressional Debate is debate by nature. It is not a dueling oratory round. In general, the first cycle is there to set up arguments in the round. The author/sponsor speech should be polished. All other speeches should have elements of refutation to other students and arguments in the round. If you are giving a speech in the fourth cycle and never refer to another person's argument, you are not going to score well in front of me. Simply dropping a person's name isn't refutation. You should tell me why their argument is wrong. With evidence it is even better.

You should do everything in your power to not go back-to-back on the same side. I will flow little of a second speech back-to-back on the same side. If you are the third speaker on the same side in a row, I'm not flowing any of it. Debaters should be prepared to switch sides if necessary. Lastly, there is a trend for no one to give an author/sponsor speech as they are worried, they will not score well. That isn't true in front of me. All parts of the debate are important.

The questioning period is about defeating arguments not to make the person look good. Softball questions are not helpful to debate. Do it multiple times and expect your rank to go down. All aspects, your speech, the quality of sources, refutation and questioning all go into your final rank. Just because you speak the prettiest does not mean you are the champion. You should be able to author/sponsor, refute, crystalize, ask tough questions, and defend yourself in questioning throughout the debate. Do all in a session and you are in decent shape.

Presiding Officers (PO): The PO will start with a rank of six in all chambers for me. From there, you can work your way up or down based on your performance. PO's who are clearly favoring the same school or same circuit students will lose rank. A PO can absolutely receive the one in my ranks likewise they can be unranked if you make many errors.

The current trend is for "super wordy" PO's. You do not need to say things like "Thank you for that speech of 3:09. As this was the 3rd Affirmative Speech, we are in line for 1 minute block of questioning. All those who wish to ask a question, please indicate." If you add up the above through an entire session, that adds up to multiple speeches that were taken by the PO. Watch how many words you say between speeches, question blocks, etc. A great PO blends away in the room. Extra language like "The chair thanks you", "this is speech 22", etc. All of this is just filler words for the PO taking time away from the debate. Lastly, a "chair" doesn't have feelings. It is not rude to be efficient.

I track precedence/recency in all sessions. I keep a detailed flow in all rounds debate - Congress, LD and PF.

Disclosure: I typically do not give any oral critiques. All the information will be on the ballot.

Email: Mburke594@hotmail.com

My name is Matt Burke, my pronouns are he/him, and I am a parent judge.

In round, I wish to hear clear and concise arguments. I expect debaters to have evidence to back up most of their claims. Direct responses to opponents and their arguments/ evidence is essential as well. If your opponent does not respond to a piece of your evidence or argument I expect you to extend it through the round.

Regarding that I have not judged many LD debate rounds, I wish that debaters speak and present their arguments slowly.

At the end of the debate, make it clear to me why you should win and summarize the debate to me in your favor. This makes my decision a lot easier.

Please be respectful to your opponent during the debate. Have fun !

I am a parent judge, and my daughter competes in Lincoln-Douglas debate. While I feel this has given me a good understanding of this debate format I never competed myself. Due never competing myself, I prefer a simple and well structured round. Clear usage of roadmapping, signposting, and other argument headings should be utilized in every speech. I prefer to focus on the big ideas of the round, rather than nit-pick small details, and think this is the most efficient way to decide on the issues at hand. If I can understand your argument and felt you communicated more clearly you have a much better chance at winning my ballot.

My background: Former attorney

What I look for in a Debate: Strong oral presentation, balance of evidence, analysis, application to the resolution and logic. Respectful sportsmanship. Prefer no spreading.

I am a parent judge. I appreciate clear argumentation with all your impacts and links laid out clearly. I’ll only evaluate what I can understand so keep speed to a reasonable level.

Speaking:

- Clear speech

- Moderate pace

Responses and Argumentation:

- Organized signposting is best

- Don't use too much debate vocabulary

Voting:

- I am a lay judge with some experience

- I will take notes on important points, pros and cons of each side

- I also judge off of speaking points and flow of information

- Please be respectful to me but also your opponents

Hello,

My name is Paul Choi, and I am a parent judge. I am an engineering manager in the tech industry.

I appreciate clearly laid-out arguments. Ideally, the contentions should flow together to create an overarching case for your argument. Each contention should be well-supported by evidence. There is no need to speak fast, or overwhelm the opponent or judges with the volume of evidence - oftentimes I find that the best debaters are able to clearly present their side of the argument with couple of well-chosen contentions and a few supporting evidences.

I have been in awe of many of the debates I've been privileged to witness so far. I am excited to hear more. Good luck and have a great round!

I was an LD debater for three years in High School. I ran a generally traditional style of debate, but don't have any major biases against against progressive debate with an absolutely clear link to the topic.

I will vote on T and Theory, K's are less attractive but I will vote on it if the argument is clearly linked and well explained. I honestly have a hard time buying non-Topical Narratives, so it's not your best strategy to use, but you can try it if you want. THE LINK IS PARAMOUNT.

I love solid topical debates!

Voting issues are key. Tell me what to vote on. If you leave me a mess to judge you may not like how I choose to vote. Make it easy for me to give you the win.

Spreading is okay, but if I need to read what you are saying to understand it you are going too fast. I will judge only based what I hear and understand in the round. I will say clear.

I keep a flow. Dropped Args are huge. EXTEND THEM! Show me their impact.

I will weigh the round based off of the weighing mechanism presented in the round, V and VC are default if nothing else is presented.

If you have any questions I am happy to answer them before the round. As well as give appropriate feed back after the round. Debate is the best! Let's try to laugh, be respectful, and learn together.

I am a parent judge. No spreading, speak clearly.

I prefer traditional debate.

Assume that I know nothing about the topic. Your job is to educate me about the topic and share all relevant details etc in order for me to judge properly.

Evidence is big, I try my best to flow.

Don't use too much debate jargon.

When debating, make sure to refer to the impact and key voters to facilitate clear understanding for me, and what I need to evaluate most when deciding my ballot.

Negative strategy-- there needs to be some sort of offense in the round. A defensive strategic approach has rarely won my ballot.

email for email chains - Kathleen.clark1@gmail.com

UPDATED FOR 2024

Please add me on the email chain: antoninaclementi@gmail.com

Y'all should really just use speechdrop tbh. Your speechdrop/email chain should be set up BEFORE the round.

If you are super aggressive in round - I am not going to disclose.

I err Tech over Truth

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers

Hi! I competed for four years in high school at Teurlings Catholic High School (Class of 2021). I've done oratorical declamation, student congress, Lincoln Douglas debate, impromptu, and extemp. I am currently continuing forensics (NFA - LD, extemp, impromptu, ndt ceda) at Western Kentucky University. I also currently coach for Ridge high school in NJ. I did online competition the entirety of my senior year and feel extremely comfortable with the online platform.

• If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Pref Shortcut:

1- Policy (LARP), traditional (do not default to traditional- I find it boring but I can evaluate it), stock Ks

2- T, theory, more dense/complex Ks

5/6 - tricks, phil

Framework (Value/Value Criterion):

With frameworks, I expect weighing as to why either your framework supersedes your opponents and/or how you achieve both frameworks. Have clear definitions of what your framework is and please be familiar with what you are running.

Counterplans:

I like a good counterplan. Make sure your counter plan is extremely fleshed out and has a strong net benefit. Needs to have all components. Also, if you run a counterplan I need to hear the words net benefit from you at least once. Plank kicks are fine. My favorite counterplan is condo.

Theory Shells:

Not my favorite style of debate but, I can tolerate them. Please do not run frivolous theory. You should disclose. With that said I DESPISE round report theory or something like must be open text I think cites and bare minimum disclosure solves.

I view theory as A priori - if you go for theory I am kicking the rest of your flow and only evaluating through the lens of theory.

I think…

New affs good

Condo good

PICs good

Consult CPs bad

Vague alts bad

TW good

Delay CPs are fine

but hey maybe you can prove me wrong

RVIs:

I strongly dislike RVIs - they are ridiculous

Topicality:

I like topicality and think some negatives have a place to run T. However, you need proven abuse to get me to vote on topicality. I would say I have a mid threshold for T and I am open to a full collapse but give a through LBL. Also, I am fine if you go for T in your first speech and kick it if your opponent has decent responses.

K's:

Make sure your K's are creative and have a strong foundation, logic, and structure. If you run a K (especially a K directly on the topic) I need to know the role of the ballot and why my voting for you actually creates any type of change. Also, in any K round I need a clear and spelled out Alt. Something I have realized judging is I need to know what your K is - Is it cap? sett col? security? etc - You can not run a security and a cap K combined on the same sheet in front of me. Basically, I need to know what your K is and it needs to be one thing. TBH I am not super familiar with lots of the academic jargon involved in K lit break it down for me and keep it simple. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan. Stay away from super techy academic jargon. Unless you are hitting a critical aff I really do not like psychoanalysis Ks.

Cap K:

Do not read Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD. With that said I like cap Ks and vote on them frequently

DA/Policy Affs:

Follow a strict and clear structure. I really enjoy politics DAs but your uniqueness needs to be recent (from the last week) and follow a clear linking format. Terminal impacts are really important here but, I need to see linking so make that really clear. I enjoy most terminal impacts if they are linked well.

Note on Politics DAs

LOVE THEM

K Affs

I think they are really cool just be sure to be prepared to defend yourself on T and let me understand what my ballot does! I usually do not vote on T - FW. Super happy to K affs that make SENSE are organized and do not have technical jargon that even the debater running it does not understand. Know you’re lit and read it proudly and your creativity will be rewarded.

Tricks

• Just thinking about trix makes me physically nauseas
• I am super open to trix bads theory
• Just have a substantive debate. Please.

Phil

• Views on phil summed up: I do not LOVE phil - esp since its old white men but i am not like morally opposed ig i am just not going to be super happy - but debate is about running what makes you happy so ig its fine
• some phil is cool. I like pragmatism and that’s kinda it tbh.
• I am super open to Kant bad/any old white philospher bad theory so idk be prepared for that ig

Spreading:

I consider speed good in rounds, I think it advances the round. However I have three rules if you spread in front of me. First, your opponent must confirms they are okay with said spreading. Two, If you spread in any capacity I and your opponent will most definitely need a copy of your case and all blocks to be read sent to us. Three, don't spread if you are not an experienced and a "good" spreader, if you are spreading (and expect high speaks) I hope you look at spreading as a skill that needs through practice.

Signpost:

I am a flow judge and you should be signposting. Keep your evidence organized and clear, and make sure your extensions are valid and pointed out. GIVE ME AN ORDER EVERY SINGLE TIME AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE.

CX:

I expect good CX questions - good CX will help you in speaks. Bonus points if you ask a question in CX and bring it up in a rebuttal later or use a CX question to hurt your opponents' framework.

Impacts:

These are pivotal to your case and blocks, have strong impacts and clear links! Big fan of terminal impacts! I like weighing done in rounds, definitely needed in your voters.

Speaks:

I use to think my speaks could not go below a 26.5. I was wrong. Take that as you will. Speaks are a reward. I'll disclose speaks, if you ask.

Flex prep:

If you use flex prep your bad at flowing

Post Rounding:

If you post round me I will stop disclosing for the rest of the tournament and drop your speaks. DO NOT DO IT. It's rude. Post rounding is different then asking questions for the sake of learning. Post rounding is you asking something snippy and when I give you my answer you roll your eyes - yes I have had this happen.

Policy:

- Same as LD
- Familiar w/ 2023 topic

Public Forum:

Same as above

• Yeah I know the rules of PF and know you can't run CPs in them.
• I know things about debate DO NOT CX me pre round about if I know enough about PF to have the "pleasure" of judging you.
• I have done PF, coached PF, taught PF to students abroad

Parli:

• Same as LD
• Do not forgot what the debate is about! Remember to at least sprinkle in key words of the topic
• I like numbering of args and clear signposting

TLDR:

Do whatever, have fun, make sense and make my job is easy and write the ballot for me in the last 30 seconds to minute of the NR and 2AR. Debates not that deep - if you don't agree with my decision that's fine but handle your loss with grace and class - trust me it benefits you in the long run. It is statistically impossible that every judge who votes you down is a "Screw" ????

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions/comments/y iconcerns please feel free to email me (antoninaclementi@gmail.com).

I have been involved in speech and debate for 29 years. I did policy in High School and debated Parli in College. I have head or assistant coached for the past 23 years.

**I don't hold CX as binding (don't need to ask if I'm ready for...I'm not flowing it).

**I start running prep when you sit down from cross and stop it when you are up to speak again. Helps keeps rounds on time. The increase in prep was to accommodate filesharing, so you should be doing that during prep, not in addition to prep.

**Aff/Pro on my left (facing me your right)

Policy

I consider myself a Communication/Stock Issues judge with strong policy maker tendencies. I like to see REALISTIC impact calc and am likely to vote for the Aff if there is no risk of a disadvantage. Theory/K: I have only voted for 1 K. I think they are a great tool in college debate and usually high school students run them as a generic, underdeveloped off case. If you didn't personally cut the cards and write the K and if you can't explain the premise to your mom in 30 seconds...you probably won't win my ballot with it. CP: need to be able to prove mutual exclusivity and net benefit. IMO CP MUST be NON-TOPICAL. DAs: I really don't buy into ridiculous impacts like extinction and nuclear war and I hate moral obligation arguments. Risk of extinction is not something I weigh. Delivery: I can flow quickly and follow fast argumentation. HOWEVER--communication is important. Abnormal breathing will lose you points as will shotgun-style spreading. Develop deep arguments with claim, data, warrant. Tag Teaming: Don't make your partner look dumb. Time: Aside from the 10 second roadmap, the clock is running. Jump/file drop during prep or CX.

Curtesy and Ethics are a BIG DEAL!

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I do NOT think Plans, CP, or K belong in LD. Keep to the V/C debate. Weigh your arguments. Should be more rhetorical (more your words, fewer cards) than policy. Judged heavily on presentation, argumentation and persuasion.

PF

Please wait to be seated until after coin toss. I need pro on my left and con on my right to help ensure the ballot is filled out in favor of the intended team. PF was made for LAY judges and I don't believe it needs a paradigm.

Congress

Yes...I have a congress paradigm...I like to see structured speeches that present NEW arguments or REFUTE arguments on the floor. Source Citation is important. Treat it like a good extemp. Presentation is important as is overall participation in the chamber. I have judged/parli at nationals for over a decade. I expect professionalism and good argumentation. POs should be efficient; keep recency and precedence; prevent suspension of the rules; and be strict but KIND.

FULL PARADIGM CAN BE FOUND HERE! This page is meant to be something you can read right before round and get a general idea of what's up

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

Bullies get dropped

If your argument needs a trigger warning, either ask before the round S T A R T S or don’t read it. Don't say mid speech "trigger warning!" because judges cannot just up and leave a round the same way you can, and you're not actually giving any students time to react. I think like 90% of tw are super performative and framed as “imma read this, deal w it”

www.ImpactInstituteDebate.com

@Impact.Institute_ on Instagram for 100% free, high quality, virtual Congressional Debate resources.

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

Any pronouns work, but do not call me mister

Congress 2016-2019 for Eagan High School in MN, traveled a little bit but certainly wasn't a circuit kid

Congress coach 2019-present at Armstrong and Cooper High Schools in MN

Parli (NPDA) for the University of Minnesota 19-20, 20-21 (I read topical affs and cap/ableism on neg)

PNW CARD Debate for 1 semester (closed research packet, but I loved sliding in Marxist lenses)

Congress judge first, but pls don’t assume I'm not a "debate" judge :)

Overall, I prefer chess over checkers. But both are valuable games!

Email chain or questions/critiques/whatever AFTER the round: Davi3736@umn.edu

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

LD:

-Ask before you spread. I probs can't understand your spreading, I'll clear/slow you until I can. 50% is a decent starting point, haven’t judged a spreading round in over a year. Use at your own risk, not voting for something I didn’t catch.

-Not flowing off a speech doc but pls share it w me

-Tech>everything: I used to say “except for xyz” but instead, just be a good debater. I’ll vote for stupidity idc. However, “get good” is probably an able normative response to “speed bad” so b careful w ur language. Wipeout, war good, dedev, truth>tech, idc just say it w your chest and let it rip.

-Judge instruction is my fav part abt this activity, followed by conceding fwk, followed by turns of any kind

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

Congress:

#AbolishPOs (don’t worry I still rank y’all)

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

Congress is a debate event you silly goose

I have over a decade judging debate and four years of debating LD and Policy. While I understand the sport aspects of debate currently in play my judging still relies on proper analysis and links, a strong understanding of the theories you present and your ability to frame the information you are using into a coherent meta-narrative. With a background in applied ethics I do consider myself more of a traditional judge and value an understanding of the philosophy at play.

General:

- Pronouns: she/her

- I have experience competing/judging/coaching in CD, PF, LD, and WSD.

- If there's anything I can do in terms of accommodations, please let me know (either via email, chat, or whatever feels most comfortable).

- Be kind and have fun!

- Feel free to ask me any questions for clarification.

Congress:

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't forget to refute! Especially after the first 1-2 cycles!

- If the debate on the legislation starts to repeat or become stale, please move to question.

- I will gladly consider the PO in my ranking. However, the PO must show good knowledge of procedures and handle the chamber well.

PF:

- Keep me in the email chain, please!

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- I don't flow/vote off of CX but I do pay attention.

- If your opponent(s) drops something in a speech or concede in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

- Time yourself and time your opponents.

- I will disclose unless there is a tournament rule against disclosing or if 1+ competitor does not want me to disclose.

- I will do my best to give you critiques after the round if time permits.

LD:

- Keep me in the email chain, please!

- Although I prefer a traditional debate, I can follow/have voted on most progressive arguments.

- Spread all you like, but it should still be clear.

- Err on the side of caution and overexplain, but if I'm on the email chain, I'll be fine.

- Organization is more important than ever!

- IMPACTS!!! WEIGHING!!! Take the argument one step further and connect the dots.

- Don't make assumptions, go through every step.

- I don't flow/vote off of CX but I do pay attention.

- If your opponent drops something in a speech or concedes in CX, I better hear something about it in your next speech to get it on my flow.

- Time yourself and time your opponent.

- I will disclose unless there is a tournament rule against disclosing or if 1+ competitor does not want me to disclose.

- I will do my best to give you critiques after the round if time permits.

I would prefer everybody to be respectful, and enjoy information driven arguments over being fast and overly persuasive

I have judged all events, but when it comes to debate most of my experience stems from LD and Congress. I value clash and enjoy watching strategies unfold. Framework is important and so is strong evidence. If you ask me in person what do I like in a debate, I say show me the best you can do and impress me. I don’t mind spreading (especially in CX where it is expected) or traditional and/or progressive debate as long your arguments are sound and adapt to your opponents’ points. Be respectful, professional, and have fun.

I have quite a bit of graduate work in philosophy, especially ethical theory. While scientific fact is absolutely important in considering an issue, I will likely side with sound philosophical arguments over scientific ones. LD is value debate, NOT policy - if you run policy arguments you will not enjoy my ballot.

I am a first-year parent judge. I appreciate debaters speaking at a coherent and moderate pace. If I cannot comprehend a debater's spoken words, verbatim, that content will be dropped. I do not tolerate spreading in rounds.

I am a lay/parent judge. I have limited experience. Please go slowly, clearly, and explain your arguments in detail. Thank you!

I am the same judge as the other Madelynn Einhorn. I just had to make a new account. You'll find an extensive paradigm if you look there (just search Madelynn Einhorn as a judge on tabroom!). To keep it short, 8-years of debate (2PF, 6 policy), collegiate national champion, judged extensively including nsda policy finals, feel free to ask any questions!

I'm a judge of modest experience, well-versed in the minutiae of debate protocols, who enjoys listening to a spirited debate. I'm not overly fond of speed presentation, especially when the debater is speaking so quickly they aren't effectively making their stated case.

I tend to make my decision based upon how well the arguments have been presented and which side has been more convincing with regard to making their case.

I ask that competitors do not spread and that they let their opponent finish their sentences during cross. No spreading and no cutting people off while talking! Thank you :)

Email- Aaron.Does.Debate@gmail.com - add me to an email chain. Feel free to email me any questions after the debate.

Hello to all who reads this!

My name is Aaron, I did 4 years of Highschool debate and am currently doing my third year of collegiate policy debate at the University of Houston as a junior! As such I am very familiar with all forms of debates and styles so don't be too scared to run something new and fun.

In general, I will vote for anything, just explain your position well. I have been delving mostly into the collegiate policy topic, so I haven't spent a lot of time researching the high school topics as such make sure you're clear about your argument.

TLDR: I will not explain nor extend arguments for you. I think theory, framework and T come first. Generally, I don't like T (I just think it’s boring to evaluate I will vote on it). Impact calc key (extinction outweighs is my default though I can be persuaded with FW and other arguments), extend warrants not taglines and compare evidence. on case args are key. I love clash of Civs :). You should make sure you signpost and control my flows if you want to win.

K- 1

Framework-2

Policy- 3

T-4

Theory-5

--Broad Topics--

Speed- Always clarity over speed. I will accept fast arguments but expect a hit to the speaks if you sacrifice clarity for speed. otherwise, if you're fast and clear expect an increase in speaks- unless you have some kind of disability which inhibits this in which case, please let me know so I take that into consideration.

Stock issues- always important if you're lacking harms, you lose.

Evidence- If you have to ask yourself about whether or not it needs ev then it needs ev. Make sure you understand your own ev. Even if I know what your ev is saying I will pretend I don't and down you if the ev is key to the round. Can't convince me if you can't explain it. Ev comparison is Key.

Weighing- my default is weighing based on key arguments and magnitude so I will weigh extinction over structural violence normally BUT if you explain to me why I shouldn't, I will happily listen and weigh differently (extinction rhetoric bad, SV prerequisite, ETC).

General notes- make sure you're extending arguments and warrants not tags. (Tell me why your evidence is true and what the evidence is saying. I hate hearing rebuttals that just repeat taglines.) Tech>Truth except in cases that are very clearly not good tech/good for education. (Even if your opponent's drop a slavery good argument even though you were technically ahead on that I will not vote on it.) Don't make Bigoted/bad arguments in front of me. Bigoted arguments will get you downed and reported to your coaches/the tournament staff.

--Specific Topics--

K- framework is key. you need to tell me why and how I should weigh the K vs The AFF or vice versa, In general I lean more towards basic Pess K's and the cap K for voting, but I'll vote on anything just make sure it makes sense. Beyond framework make sure your alt solves and that you're explaining your links. For the neg, I think most K's require robust framework debate so make sure you're doing work here - Links need to be clear and you need to explain how they lead to the impact and how the alt solves. specific stuff here - I don't like omission links that much but I try not to let that sway me, I prefer big impacts on the K page in the event you need to win impact calc (unless you won FW), ALT SOLVENCY IS KEY, also I hate immaterial alts, I will vote on immaterial alts but It takes more work on alt solvency to make sure I understand exactly how you solve.- alt solvency is key because presumption does flip Aff if the alt is net worse for the squo- performances need to link to your theory of power don't just start yelling for no reason.

K Aff's- Refer back to my opinion on K's except now you have to convince me on why I should weigh your K at all or else I will vote on T.

T- T is a procedural fairness question so I will evaluate this first but generally I don't like T debate I think it's a boring debate and more often than not the Aff is most definitely topical. That being said I will not ignore the T flow if you are a T centered debater don't be scared to read it I will evaluate it I will simply be unamused while doing so. That being said I'd recommend putting your time elsewhere. (If you're hitting a K Aff - T is strategic this is one of the only situations where I'll happily vote on a T debate that was too close for comfort.)

Disad's- Good links! I generally don't like generic links. I will accept link boosters in the 2NC if need be but try and make your link clear to begin with. + 1 Disad is almost never enough to win a round against a good aff remember to pair with something else (DA+Presumption, DA+CP, DA turns case)
CP's- You need net benefits, and you need to explain why it cannot be permed very clearly or I will not vote on it (assuming your opponent correctly calls you out on these things). - also, presumption flips Aff when the CP is net worse for the squo.

Adv CP's- same rules except only apply to specific advantages- net benefits to the advantage and why can't they perm?

Case- Case is the most important thing for the Aff. if you lose on the case flow then nothing else matters. Make sure you properly defend case. On the neg however if you have proper framing and off case positions case is less important, I still recommend covering it as much as possible as you're only more likely to lose if you don't cover case.

Theory- I will make fun of you for making silly theories on the RFD BUT a dropped/not covered argument is a true argument. That means even a silly theory could lose you a round if its properly explained and you don't cover it.

--more specific theory--

Condo bad- generally I don't like to vote on this either, but I will if the neg mishandles it or if the neg is running like 10 condo Args (yes, Conditional planks count, and I think act as an impact multiplier on condo).

Dispo bad- same as condo

Perf con- Usually this has to be super blown up and or conceded for this to even be considered a voter to me. I personally subscribe to multiple worlds. A good Aff and debater should be able to answer performative contradictions and a good neg debater should be able to explain why they can be contradictory.

General theory- judge kick bad- default is reasonability- Theory should be a rule of debate that is good not just a random reason to reject the team. - most theory probably isn't a real voter besides condo- I am VERY unlikely to pull the trigger on theory unless its condo, perfcon, or dropped.

Presumption- you have to tell me why. I will not explain to myself why the Aff or the CP or the Alt is worse than or for the squo

General biases- on the neg I like good K debate, so a good K is an easy way to the ballot, I am also partial to Disads, I dislike T, everything else is fairly neutral. - on the Aff side I like seeing new and fun advantages and am partial to strong yet new (to me) link chains that I haven't seen before. If you can make an advantage that has strong links and impacts that I haven't seen before I will love to vote on it, that isn't to say you can't win without originality, I just like it when I am judging is all.

Speaks- I Think I go by standard norms, but I'll outline anyway. (I can tend to be harsh don't take it personally.)

30- perfect (if you get a thirty out of me be proud)

29- very good

28- good/acceptable

27- ok...

anything below 27 you had to have messed up extremely bad.

Former US Extemper, PFer, and OOer, with a strong focus/storied career in extemp.

Currently compete in british parliamentary debate and occasionally APDA with Stanford.

truth > tech, the point of debate is education on topics + critical thinking skills so don't tell me that nuke war with china will happen if we don't pass your water infrastructure bill

only spread if you're good at it lol. if i'm confused, i'll look confused.

i won't flow cross or take it into consideration for who wins UNLESS you bring up something that happened on cross during a speech and use it to make an argument, which you should probably do.

please weigh impacts for me this is probably the most important thing you can do especially if theres a lot of confusing clash on warranting. also "lol big magnitude means better impact :)" is not a good way of weighing impacts, explain things more than just one sentence of "we win on magnitude" - why should we care about magnitude over prob/timeframe or vice versa?

plz signpost and keep speech organized

glhf

I am a Lay Judge. Please don't spread or speak too quickly, debate is an activity about persuasiveness, not about throwing things at a wall. I don't enjoy progressive debate, If you want to do it, do policy. If I can’t understand you it doesn't serve you well. I may not flow everything. Make sure you signpost clearly.

Me

I’m in my 15th year as a history teacher and 2nd year as a Debate sponsor/coach of our up-and-coming Debate program at MAST@FIU BBC Campus. I have a BA in International Relations from the University of Pennsylvania, a Master’s in History from Florida International University and a PhD in History. I have judged in a state tournament, local tournaments, and some online scrimmage events.

General paradigm

I’m open to whatever kind of position you want to use in the debate. I prefer clear roadmaps and explanations. I do not prefer, however, radical Kritiks and spreading.

Delivery

I like to take notes/flow. I do not prefer excessive speed.

Points

I avoid giving 30s except for a truly exceptional performance. I use speaker points as rank.

Debate

I am most familiar with Lincoln-Douglas though on occasion have judged PF and Congress. Please explain jargon.

Prog Jargon:

• No trix please. I probably won't catch them or understand them.
• Explain K's well to me. I'm not familiar with the lit.
• I err T, I'll vote on Topicality.
• Please explain Theory well.
• Plans are ok, just explain them well. Make sure your links/internal-links are clear.

I debated high school debate in Virginia / Washington DC for Potomac Falls '03 to '07 and college for USF '07 to '11. I am currently the debate coach for Oakland Technical High School.

add me to email chain please: aegorell@gmail.com

I am generally pretty open to vote on anything if you tell me to, I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. I love judge instruction. I err tech over truth.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine.

General - Removing analytics is coward behavior. Okay, after I put this in everyone seems to think I mean I need to see all your analytics ever. I’m saying if you have prewritten analytics you should not remove those (coward behavior) especially in the early constructive speeches. Removing analytics and trying to get dropped args from spreading poorly is bad for debate and if it’s not on my flow it didn’t happen. Analytics off the dome from your flow are great and not what I’m talking about.I'm fine with tag team / open cross-x unless you're going to use it to completely dominate your partners CX time. I'll dock speaker points if you don't let your partner talk / interrupt them a bunch. Respect each other. I'm good with spreading but you need to enunciate words. If you mumble spread or stop speaking a human language I'll lower your speaker points. Please signpost theory shells. I will evaluate your evidence quality if it is challenged or competing evidence effects the decision, but generally I think if a judge is pouring through your warrants thats probably not a good sign, you should have been extending those yourself I shouldn't have to hunt them down. Don’t cheat, don’t do clipping, don’t be rude. Obviously don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, in life in general but also definitely not in front of me. This is a competitive and adversarial activity but it should also be fun. Don’t try to make others miserable on purpose.

Topicality/Theory - Hiding stuff in the T shell is bad and I'll probably disregard it if Aff tells me to. Good T and theory debates need voters/impacts, which a lot of people seem to have forgotten about. I think for theory to be compelling in round abuse is supreme. If you're complaining you had no time to prep and then have 15 hyper specific link cards....come on. Disclosure theory is basically never viable independent offense but I think it can be a strong argument to disregard theory arguments run against you since they refused disclosure norms.

Framework - I'll follow the framework I'm given but I prefer a framework that ensures equitable clash. Clash is the heart and soul of this activity.

Kritiks - You need to understand what you are advocating for. If you just keep repeating the words of your tags without contextualizing or explaining anything, you don't understand your Kritik. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan but I can be convinced otherwise. My threshold is high and it’s easier to access if you can prove in round abuse / actually tailored links. Also, I don't think links on K's always need to be hyper specific but I do not want links of omission. I like fiat debates. I think a lot of kritiks are very vulnerable to vagueness procedurals.

K-Affs - Good K-Affs are amazing, but I almost never see them. I used to say I tend to err neg but I actually end up voting aff more often than not mostly because negs don’t seem to know how to engage. Vagueness seems to be most egregious with k affs. Don’t be vague about what you’re trying to do or what my vote does and you’ll have a much better chance with me. I like debate, which is why I am here, so if your whole argument is debate bad you'll have an uphill battle unless you have a specific positive change I can get behind. Just because I like debate doesn’t mean it can’t also be better. I can recognize its problematic elements too. Reject the topic ain't it. I need to know what my ballot will functionally do under your framework. If you can't articulate what your advocacy does I can't vote for it. I think fairness can be a terminal impact. Negs should try to engage the 1AC, not even trying is lazy. Really listen to what the K aff is saying because often you can catch them contradicting themselves in their own 1AC, or even providing offense for perf cons.

CPs - I'll judge kick unless Aff tells me not to and why. Justify your perm, don’t just say it. You need to explain it not just yell the word perm at me 5 times in a row. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse. I think I start being open to condo bad around 3 or 4? But if you want me to vote on condo you better GO for it. 15 seconds is not enough. I think fiat theory arguments are good offense against many CPs. Consult, condition or delay CP's without a really good and case specific warrant are lame and I lean aff on theory there. Advantage CPs rule, but more than 5 planks is crazy. By advantage CPs I mean like...actually thought out a targeted ones that exploit weaknesses in plans.

DAs - I evaluate based on risk and impact calc. More than 3 cards in the block saying the same thing is too many. Quality over quantity.

For LD - I try to be as tab as I can but in order to do that you need to give me some kind of weighing mechanism to determine whose voting issues I prefer. If you both just list some voting issues with absolutely no clash it forces me to make arbitrary decisions and I hate that. Give me the mechanism / reason to prefer and you'll probably win if your opponent does not. So like, do I prefer for evidence quality or relevance? Probability? Give me something. I'm probably more open to prog arguments because I come from policy debate but if someone runs a Kritik and you do a decent job on kritiks bad in LD theory against it I'll vote on that.

Contact Information:

smgreen@conroeisd.net

DEBATE

Speed:

I hate it. Debate is supposed to be an event of not only logic and evidence, but persuasion. Take time to help me understand why I care so much. Side note: In the age of the internet, speed can also hurt because internet connections can cause me to miss full arguments if you cut out for even a second.

LD

I am a traditional, value-debate judge. This means I want to see a clash of either which value is best, or who upholds it more. I want why your value matters more. You need to give me the moral impacts. WHY do I care about equality more than equity? What are the real-world problems that come with viewing one over the other? Why do I prefer? Why are they inherently negative/positive impacts in and of themselves? Philosophy isn't a "card" nor "evidence". Value ethics are ways to judge the morality of an action. Depending on which value ethic approach you take, you need evidence that proves the universality of a philosophical perspective.

Values and criterion MUST link. The value must be met through the lens of the criterion. How does the criterion let me as the judge weigh the round? Why do I prefer that and how is it possible to weigh the value using it?

Then, I want to see how the contention-level framework proves you meet your criterion and therefore the value.

K's pretty much don't exist in LD. They are either observations or contentions. There are a very rare few that will fly, but they have to be pretty much metaphysical perspectives of why the resolution isn't or shouldn't be achieved. K's like Cap K's or Racism K's are really rebuttal arguments or contentions about teleological or deontological or other value-ethics approaches. If you run a K, you CANNOT attack the on-case.

Don't run a plan. Not that I won't accept it, but LD is a WHY should we, not a HOW should we debate. This is especially true in resolutions with no timeframe nor location frame. I will allow almost any argument poking holes in the universality of the plan as reason to down a plan/counterplan.

My judging thought process in weighing an LD round:

1) Whose value has been proven as more vital?

2) Which criteria is best to weigh that value?

3) Whose case best upholds the value/criterion from the above to?

Extemp Speaking

Before anything else: Answer. The. Question. Please. If you give a great speech but answered the question incorrectly, you aren't getting a high rank unless literally everyone else did the same. But then, I may vote for myself.

I look for the standard 3x3x3 speech: Intro with an AGD, background on the topic and why it matters now, and a glimpse of your three points; three points with analysis of evidence; a conclusion putting a nice ribbon tying everything together.

AGDs/Intro: I am a huge fan of metaphors and anecdotes as AGDs, but please, PLEASE, do not give me something canned. Please make sure the AGD flows nicely into the intro and not be super jarring. If you can make me laugh, gold stars. Don't just jump right into the speech. Hook me in!

Points: Simple. Cite sources and dates (at least the year and month), analyze information, make sure all three make sense in answering the question. If you analysis is off, I'm going to call it out. This is a speaking event, but your analysis is most important. You can give a great SOUNDING speech; but if it made no sense, no high ranks for you. The more unique your analysis and astute your analysis, the higher you'll be ranked than the more obvious approach. I don't care what position you take as long as you do it well.

Conclusion: Keep it short, sweet and to the point.

Congress

Policy

I'm a stock issues judge. However, in general, the affirmative should have a robust plan text. Just repeating the resolution is NOT a plan. It may be included in the solvency, but I'm looking for a legitimate plan. I'm not looking for a vague semblance of what we should do, but what exactly we need to do to solve the problem.

Negatives I don't take a card dump as good refutation/proving their case is flawed. Show me the cards uniquely link. Generic arguments are awful.

PF

Extemp Debate

BQ

Most of my LD paradigm applies except for the LD-specific ideas like value and criterion. In general, I do not believe in the burden of rejoinder/“silence is compliance” in this debate, but I’m going to weigh the arguments that, in totality, support each side. Each side does have an affirmative burden of proof for their respective side. In general, convince me. Make me feel the arguments and reasons I should believe you. I’m looking for people to debate the resolution, not just each other.

INTERP

It doesn't really matter which event I am watching, there are similar things I'm looking for:

Performer is living in the moments and letting me FEEL what you're saying instead of just HEARING what you're saying. You have to interpret the piece and not just let it do all the work. However, you also don't want to crush the writing by over (or under) acting. This takes LOTS of work and practice and feedback.

Pacing should be slow enough where I don't feel like I'm watching a good performance on fast forward. There are obviously fast-paced scenes, but those should be intentionally so. Think of a roller coaster. There are peaks and valleys and different speeds. This is to make you feel a variety of emotions throughout the ride. There is NO difference between a roller coaster and interp in that regard.

Character development. If there are multiple characters I should be able to see AND hear the difference. If the characters will blend together, I can't adequately follow the plot or understand what I'm supposed to be feeling. Be consistent. Be clear. I also want characters that don't stand in the same body positions. While they have a distinct personality, they can stand in different ways if it FEELS the same. A jock character might flex now and then, but not every single time they appear (unless the piece literally calls for it). I also want to see clever characters that aren't developed in the low-hanging fruit. Old people aren't always hunched over with a cane. Jocks aren't always holding a football. Nerds don't always have a backpack on. The more clever (but still recognizable) your character, the better.

Piece & cutting. Sometimes the piece just isn't cut right or isn't strong enough compared to other performers. There are times I can't rank a piece higher simply because it didn't make me laugh/cry/etc. the way the others could. Obviously this depends on the category, but cutting and editing is important. I would rather hear less of a performance done really, really well than a lot crammed and rushed.

Teasers. These should give me a taste of the characters and a basic idea of what I'm getting into. If I'm not hooked or don't "get" a character off the bat, it doesn't bode well.

Intro. Say the piece name and author. Give me a glimpse as to what the piece is and why you chose it now.

Uniqueness. Are you giving me something I haven't seen before? Performers who show me something new and do a good job will be ranked higher than someone doing a good job with a cliché approach.

Prefer debaters to speak not too fast. Standard news reader speed <= 150 wpm preferred.

I have been judging for 3 years now. I judged 2 years for PF and 1 year LD.

I have been a parent judge for 3+ years and have mainly judged LD. Important notes for debaters:

1. Speak clearly and at normal pace
2. Tag your contentions
3. Be respectful

This is my third year as a parent judge. I have judged LD, BQ, PF, IPDA, EXT, Declamation, and Congress both at local tournaments and at Nationals . I try to focus on the speaker and only take key notes during the round. I like to see the speaker talk to the judges and not the podium (scanning all the judges, try not to focus on one judge). Be passionate about your topics. I am not to concerned with time. If you run over a few seconds I would rather you finish the sentence than stop talking abruptly. I cannot keep up with spreading.

I have just started debating so I do not have much experience.

I expect very little as a judge.

All I ask is that people remain respectful to each other, and speak as clear as possible.

I am a lay judge.

Hey Guys, thanks for checking out my paradigms. I have competed in Congress, LD, World Schools, IPDA, PF and Parli (almost everything except policy cause I hate spreading). Because of the types of debates I have done, I am well versed in the different formats of debate and the rules of that debate style, so don't try and pull PF or Policy formats or rules into LD, I will notice and not be happy.

For LD:

Big No Nos for me:

THIS IS NOT POLICY SO NO SPREADING. If you spread faster than I can type, I will stop flowing.

I will flow the Affs points as dropped if the Neg doesn't cover them in the first speech.

If you do not signpost, then good luck to you cause you're gonna have question marks on your flow and that's not good. Just include the "cross apply to my opponents 1st contention", takes 5 seconds and will make the decision for the round easier.

Concerning Debate etiquette:

- If you are inappropriate or disrespectful to your opponent, I will give them the win. I do not allow any forms of disrespect. I will not require the opponent to point it out, as soon as I see it, you will lose the ballot and the round will stop. I will reach out to your judge as well and let them know what you are doing in rounds and why you lost the ballot. So basically just be nice and you have nothing to be worried about. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN CX, like just don't be a butthead and all will be well.

- Debaters have a 5-8 second grace period to finish their sentence when their time is up. When the timer goes off, let your opponent finish, do not hold the timer to the mic and have the beeping go over them. Everyone has a timer and I can see when their time is up. If they go over, I will deduct points but if you hold a timer to the mic, I will count you down on speaker points. If this is a repeated behavior, you will lose the ballot. I am very serious about this.

Concerning anything else:

- When calling abuse, you better have a darn good reason. While in some cases calling abuse it valid, this is debate, so do just that.

Good reasons to call abuse:

False or exaggerated evidence:

Do not lie or exaggerate your evidence. If you call abuse on evidence, use your prep time to have the opponent send the card to me and if you have the same card (that says differently than what you opponent is saying about that same card) email me that as well. (email:sarahardin03@gmail.com)

Impossible Burdens:

You just have to really prove that its unfair and depending on what you say and the frame of the debate, I will decide if it's an unfair burden.

How I give speaks:

29+: Fantastic

28-29: Really good speaker

27-28: Better than average, but can improve in some areas

26-27: Average speaker

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

For circuit tournaments:I expect teams to disclose promptly after pairings come out. Don't show up to the room 1 minute before the round starts and then finally disclose the aff or past 2NRs (especially if it's not on the wiki). I consider this the same as not disclosing at all and thus am ok with your opponents running disclosure on you.

The brief rundown of whatever event I am judging this weekend is below, but here's the full breakdown of how I feel about various arguments as well as my paradigm for other events. I even used the google docs outline to save you time in finding what you need: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KwX4hdsnKCzHLYa5dMR_0IoJAkq4SKgy-N-Yud6o8iY/edit?usp=sharing

PGP: they/them

I don't care what you call me as long as you don't call me broke (jk, I am a teacher so you can also call me that ig)

Email chain: Yes, I do want to be on the email chain (saves time): learnthenouns[at]the-google-owned-one.

Head coach at Lincoln East (10-ish years), 7 years of debating in high school (LD, Policy and Congress) and college (NFA-LD and NPDA/NPTE Parli)

Overview for all events

• Debate is both educational and a game. I believe the education comes from ideas engaging with one another and students finding their voice. The "game" element functions as a test of your effectiveness in presenting and defending your personal beliefs and advocacies. Thus, I consider myself a games player as it is a necessary component of the educational experience.

• A major exception: I will not listen to you promote any kind of advocacy that says oppression good or structural violence denial (ie claiming anti-white racism is real). They are an auto-ballot against you regardless of whether your opponent points it out or not.

• I flow internal warrants and tags more often than author names so don’t rely on me knowing what “extend Smith #3 in 2k12” means in the grand scheme of the debate and, similarly, don’t power tag or plan to mumble your way through cards because I’m listening and will call you on it. I am more interested in the content of your arguments than the names of the people that you are citing.

• On that note, I want the speech doc so that I can check your evidence and appreciate analytics being included when the debate is online.

Delivery: I'm approaching 20 years in the game at this point so I've started to get more picky about delivery stuff, especially with speed.

• In-person: speed is fine in everything except congress. I watch NDT rounds for fun, so I can handle it. But I do expect clarity in all events. I will yell "clear" once or twice if you're mumbling, and after that I reduce speaks. Enunciation should be a baseline in debate, not a bonus.

• Online: if you are extremely fast, slow it down a little bit (but not a ton) when online, especially if you have a bad mic. The unfortunate reality is most people's set ups can't handle top policy speeds. On that note, I strongly encourage you to include analytics in the doc when online in case audio cuts out or there are other tech issues!
  

• Slow down a bit for your analytics and tags darn it. I am not a machine, I cannot flow your analytics when you're going 400wpm.

Policy

In super-brief (or T/L as the cool kids call it):

See below for in-depth on different arguments

• Great for: Ks; T; K affs in the direction of the topic; unique and well-warranted plan affs; soft left affs; framework; performance args; most things that deal with critical lit (especially love Deleuze tbh)

• Ok for: blippy/big stick plan text affs; K affs with zero topic links; DAs with strong links; valid procedurals (ie vagueness, condo); basic CP debates; Baudrillard

• I would rather not judge (but have definitely still voted for): CP debates that get heavily into CP theory; generic DAs with minimal links, frivolous theory (ie inherency procedural, arbitrary spec shells, etc); most speed ks (unless they are grounded in something like ableism); orientalist China bashing

• Various things I especially appreciate: clash, debating and extending warrants, in-depth case debate, impacting T properly, an organized flow, prompt pre-round disclosure and open sourcing, creative arguments, sending analytics in the doc when debating online

• Various things I especially dislike: rudeness, not kicking things properly, mumbling when speed reading, disorganized flows, debaters who show up late to rounds and then ask us to wait while they pre-flow, extending author names or tags instead of warrants and impacts

Other basics:

• I am mostly down for whatever, but I prefer in-depth debate over blippy extensions. I am ultimately a games player though, so you do you.

• I want teams to engage with each other's arguments (including T, framework, and case). Debating off scripted blocks for the whole round isn't really debating and sort of makes me wonder if we even needed to have the round.

• I will evaluate things however they are framed in the round. That said, if there is no explicit framing, then I usually default to believing that real-world impacts are of more importance than imaginary impacts. Real-world impacts can come from policymaking cases and T as much as K debates. However, if you frame it otherwise and win that framing then I will evaluate the round accordingly.

• Weighing your impacts and warranting your solvency throughout the whole round (not just the rebuttals) is a quick way to win my ballot. Otherwise, I vote off the flow/what I’m told to vote for.

Argument specifics:

Kritiks/K Affs/performance/ID tix/whatever:

I’m a good person to run your critical case in front of. I love K’s/critical/performance/id tix/new debate/most things nontraditional.

• I'm familiar with a lot of the lit and ran a lot of these arguments myself.

• I do not believe that the aff needs to act through the USFG to be topical and, in fact, engaging with the res in other ways (personal advocacy, genealogy, micropolitics, deconstruction etc) can be reasonably topical and often can provide better education and personal empowerment.

• For clarity, as long as you are engaging with a general premise or an interpretation of the resolution then I believe the aff can claim reasonable topicality.

• That being said, to be an effective advocate for these things in the real world, you have to be able to justify your method and forum, so framework/T are good neg strats and an important test of the aff.

• I am increasingly persuaded by the argument that if you are going to be expressly nontopical on the aff (as in advocating for something with no relation to the topic and zero attempts to engage the resolution), then you need to be prepared with a reason for not discussing the res.

Trad/policy-maker/stock issues debate:

• Most of the circuits I debated in have leaned much more traditional so I am extremely familiar with both how to win with and how to beat a topical aff strat.

• My top varsity team the last few years have tended to run trad as much or maybe more than critical, but historically I've coached more K teams.

• I'm totally down to judge a topical debate but you shouldn't assume that I already know the nuances of how a specific DA or CP works without a little explanation as our local circuit is K-heavy and I only recently started coaching more trad teams.

Framework and theory:

• I love: debate about the forum, method, role of the judge/ballot, and impact calc. Making the other team justify their method is almost always a good thing.

• I strongly dislike: generic fw, arbitrary spec shells, K's are cheating args, and most debate theory arguments that ask me to outright dismiss your opponent for some silly reason.

• Real talk, almost none of us are going to be future policymakers (meaning alternative ways of engaging the topic are valuable), and wiki disclosure/pre-round prep checks most abuse.

• In short, I want you to engage with your opponent's case, not be lazy by reading a shell that hasn't been updated since 2010.

• Of course, as with most things though, I will vote for it if you justify it and win the flow (you might be sensing a theme here....).

Topicality:

I L-O-V-E a good T debate. Here are a few specifics to keep in mind:

• By "good" I mean that the neg needs to have a full shell with a clear interp, violation, reasons to prefer/standards and voters.

• Conversely, a good aff response to T would include a we meet, a counter definition, standards and reasons why not to vote on T.

• Since T shells are almost totally analytic, I would also suggest slowing down a bit when reading the shell, especially the violations or we meets.

• I usually consider T to be an a priori issue though I am open to the aff weighing real-world impacts against the voters (kritikal affs, in particular, are good for this though moral imperative arguments work well too).

• Reasonability vs competing interps: absent any debate on the issue I tend to default to reasonability in a K round and competing-interps in a policy round. However, this is a 51/49 issue for me so I would encourage engaging in this debate.

• There does not need to be demonstrated in-round abuse (unless you provide an argument as to why I should) for me to vote on T but it does help, especially if you're kicking arguments.

• Aff RVI's on T are almost always silly. K's of T are ok though the aff should be prepared to resolve the issue of whether there is a topical version of the aff and why rejecting the argument and not the team does not solve the k.

• One caveat: in a round where the aff openly admits to not trying to defend the resolution, I would urge a bit more caution with T, especially of USFG, as I find the turns the aff can generate off of that to be fairly persuasive. See the sections on K's and framework for what I consider to be a more strategic procedural in these situations.

• This is mentioned above but applies here as well, please remember that I do not think an aff must roleplay as the USFG to be topical. Advocating for the resolution can (and should) take many forms. Most of us will never have a direct role in policymaking, but hopefully, most of us will take the opportunity to advocate our beliefs in other types of forums such as activism, academia, and community organizing. Thus, I do not buy that the only real topic-specific education comes from a USFG plan aff.

Counterplans:

• I like the idea of the CP debate but I'm honestly not well versed in it (I probably closed on a CP twice in 7 years of debate). My kids have been running them a lot more recently though so I am getting more competent at assessing them ????

• Basically, I understand the fundamentals quite well but will admit to lacking some knowledge of the deeper theoretical and 'techy' aspects of the CP.

• So feel free to run them but if you are going to get into super tech-heavy CP debate then be warned that you will need to explain things well or risk losing me.

Speed and delivery:

As mentioned above, fine in-person. Mostly fine online unless you are super fast. Also, I really want clarity when speaking even more than I care about speed.

Slow down for analytics and tags. Especially analytics on things like T, theory of framework. These are the most important things for me to get down, so be aware of your pacing when you get to these parts if you want me to flow them.

Pet peeve: speed=/=clear. "Speed" is for how fast you are going. "Clear" is for mumbling. I can handle pretty fast speeds, I can't handle a lack of clarity. I will usually give you one warning, two if I am feeling generous (or if you request it), and then will start docking speaks. I am also good with you going slow. Though since I can handle very fast speeds, I would suggest you give some impacted out reasons for going slow so as to avoid being spread out of the round.

LD

Argument ratings

• K debate (pomo or ID tix): 10 out of 10

• Performance: 10 out of 10

• T/theory (when run correctly): 8.5 out of 10

• LARP/plan-focus: 8 out of 10

• Phil (aka trad): 7 out of 10

• T/theory (when blipped out and poorly argued): 5 out of 10

• Tricks: 0 out of 10 (boooo boooooo!!!)

These are just preferences though. I have and will vote for anything (even tricks, unfortunately, but my threshold is extremely high)

Speed (for context, conversational is like a 3 or 4 out of 10)

• Speed in person: 8.5/10

• Speed online: 6 or 7/10 (depends on mic quality)

The most important specifics:

• (This has increasingly become an issue in LD so I am moving it up to the top) Mumbling through a bunch of cards with no clear breaks before tags or variance of pace is not good or effective. A lot of LDers I have seen don't seem to understand that speed should never come at the expense of clarity. I judge policy most weekends. I can handle speed. No one can understand your mumbling.

• That said, I generally feel that disclosure is good and spreading is fine (even an equalizer in some ways). However, there is a lot of debate to be had here (especially when topics like opacity and the surveillance of non-white debaters or ableism get raised), and I have voted for both sides of each issue multiple times.

• I consider myself a games player, so I primarily am looking to evaluate what 'wins out' in terms of argumentation in the debate.

• I love creativity and being intellectually engaged, so I’m a good person to run your Kritik/project/performance/non-topical aff/art case in front of. Of course, I still need you to make it an argument if you want me to vote for you (singing a song isn't an auto-win, especially if you sing it poorly), but otherwise, fire away.

• Strike me if you have to use tricks or similar bad strategies (i.e. blippy and arbitrary theory spikes/shells/tricks such as "aff only gets 2 contentions" or "aff auto wins for talking" or "neg doesn't get any arguments") to win rounds. They are not debating in any sense of the word, and I cannot think of any educational or competitive value that can be derived from promoting them. If you decide to ignore this, I will likely gut your speaks (ie a 26 or maybe lower).

• If you want to win a theory debate, warrant your arguments in every speech. Really, I guess that's true of all arguments, but it's most frequently a problem on theory. Don't just say "limits key to competitive equity, vote on fairness" and call it a day. I'm a T hack when it's run well, but most people don't like to take time to run it well.

• Beyond that, I like just about every style of LD (again, other than tricks). I have greatly enjoyed judging everything from hyper-traditional to extremely fast and critical. I don't see any type as being inherently 'superior' to the others, so do what you do and I'll listen, just justify it well.

• For your reference in terms of what I am most familiar with arguments wise, I coach a team that has typically run more critical and identity lit (po-mo, anti-blackness, Anzaldua, D&G, cap, fem, neolib, Judith Butler etc) and often plays around with what some might call "nontraditional strategies." Though we often run more traditional philosophy (typically Levinas, Kant, util, or Rawls) and plan-text style cases as topics warrant.

How I resolve debates if you do not tell me otherwise:

**Note: this is all assuming that no other debate happens to establish specific burdens or about the importance of any particular level of the debate. In other words, I am willing to rearrange the order I evaluate things in if you win that I should.

In short:

ROB/ROJ/Pre-fiat Burdens > Procedurals (T/thoery) > Framing (value/crit) > Impacts

Not so short:

-First, the role of the ballot, the role of the judge, and the burdens of each side are up for debate in front of me (and I actually enjoy hearing these debates). I tend to believe that these are a priori considerations (though that is up for debate as well) and thus are my first consideration when evaluating the round.

- Next, I will resolve any procedurals (i.e. topicality, theory shells, etc) that have been raised. I will typically give greater weight to in-depth, comparative analysis and well-developed arguments rather than tagline extensions/shells. If you're going to run one of these, it needs to actually be an argument, not just a sentence or two thrown in at the end of your case (again, no "tricks").

-Absent a ROTB/ROJ or procedural debate I next look to the value/crit/standard, so you should either A) clearly delineate a bright-line and reason to prefer your framework over your opponent's (not just the obnoxious 'mine comes first' debate please) or B) clearly show how your case/impacts/advocacy achieves your opponent's framework better (or both if you want to make me really happy….)

-After framework (or in the absence of a clear way to evaluate the FW) I finally look to impacts. Clear impact analysis and weighing will always get preference over blippy extensions (you might be sensing a theme here).

-For a more detailed breakdown of how I judge certain arguments, please see "argument specifics" in my policy paradigm below. The only major difference is that I do think aff RVI's are semi-legit in LD because of time limits.

PF

Theory (since this will probably impact your strikes the most, I will start here)

In short, I think theory has an important role to play in PF as we develop clearer, nationwide norms for the event. When it's necessary and/or run well, I dig it.

I have sat through enough painful evidence exchanges and caught enough teams misrepresenting their evidence that I would prefer teams to have "cut cards" cases and exchange them by the start of their speech (preferably earlier). If one side elects not to do this, I am willing to vote on theory regarding evidence ethics (assuming it's argued and extended properly). Questions about this? Email me in advance (my email is up top).

To clarify/elaborate on the above: I am very much down for disclosure theory and paraphrasing theory in PF. Irl I think both are true and good arguments. If you don't want to disclose or you refuse to run cut card cases rather than paraphrased cases, you should strike me.

I am not quite as keen on other types of theory in PF, but given how quickly my attitude was changed on paraphrasing, I am very much open to having my mind changed.

Overview for PF

Generally speaking, I see PF as a more topic-centric policy round where the resolution acts as the plan text. This, of course, depends on the topic, but this view seems to generally provide for a consistent and fair means to evaluate the round.

Truth vs tech:

While my default in other events is tech over truth, I find that PF tends to lend itself to a balance of tech and truth due to the fact that teams are rarely able to respond to every argument on the flow. "Truth" to me is determined by warranting and explanation (so still tied to an extent to tech). As such, better-warranted arguments will get more weight over blippy or poorly explained arguments.

Speed:

I can handle pretty much any speed however, if you're going fast, your analysis better be more in-depth as a result. In other words, speed for depth is good, speed for breadth (ie more blippy arguments) is bad. A final word of caution on speed is that PFers often suck at proper speed reading in that they lack any semblance of clarity. So be clear if you go fast.

Other PF specifics:

I tend to prefer the final focus to be more focused on framing, impact weighing, and round story; and less focused on line-by-line. Though again, given my experience in LD and Policy, I can definitely handle line-by-line, just don't forget to warrant things out.

All evidence used in the round should be accessible for both sides and the judge. 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 also reserve the right to start a team's prep time up if they are taking an excessively long time to share their stuff.

On that note, I will call for evidence and I appreciate it when teams help me know what to call for. I know that paraphrasing is the norm at this point but I do not love it as it leads to a lot of teams that excessively spin or outright lie about evidence. Tell me to call for it if it's junk evidence and I'll do so. I will apply the NSDA guidelines regarding paraphrasing when it is justified, so make sure you are familiar with those rules so that you can avoid doing it and know to call your opponents out when they slip up.

I hate bullying in crossfire. I dock speaker points for people that act like jerks.

(not sure this is still a thing anywhere but just in case....) 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. In fact, I prefer they don't as it decreases clash and takes the only advantage they have from speaking first.

Bio (not sure anyone reads these but whatever): I have competed in or coached almost everything and I am currently the head coach at Lincoln East. I’ve spent over half my life in this activity (16 years coaching, 7 years competing). My goal is to be the best judge possible for every debater. As such, please read my feedback as me being invested in your success. Also, if you have any questions at all I would rather you ask them than be confused, so using post-round questions as a chance to clarify your confusion is encouraged (just don't be a jerk please).

Nebraska only: I expect you to share your evidence and cases with your opponents and me. It can be paper or digital, but all parties participating in the debate need to have access to the evidence read in rounds. This is because NSDA requires it, because it promotes good evidence ethics in debate, and because hoarding evidence makes debate even more unfair for small programs who have fewer debaters and coaches. Not sure why we're still having this discussion in 2023.

To be clear, if you don't provide both sides with copies of your evidence and cases, then I will be open to your opponent making that an independent voting issue. I might just vote you down immediately if I feel it's especially egregious.Oh and I'll gut speaks for not sharing cases.

Hello! I am a parent judge with a few years of experience judging debate. I appreciate good logic chains and respectful manners in round, and English is my second language so please speak clearly and at a conversational speed, I may have trouble keeping up with fast or technical rounds. Most importantly, have fun!

Hello Speakers,

I look for the following elements in your speech.

1. Always have a claim, warrant, and impact; make sure to specify them

2. Support your argument with data and empirics

3. Speak clear and confident; do not be too fast and keep a positive debate environment!

My average speaks are around 27. If you speak really well then I will go up from there. If you need to be clear and have more developed arguments, then I will go down from there.

Good luck and have fun!

Progressive arguments--read at your own risk

I am a coach (Washington) with most of my skills and training in speech. My high school events (Oregon and Montana) were oratory and interps. When it comes to debate, I am not as experienced though I have been judging it regularly at smaller local tournaments. I have been coaching for over 5 years and attended nationals 3 times. I did judge Big Questions at nationals one year.

I prefer traditional LD and a conversational speaking pace. This is a values debate so you should focus on convincing me that your value is more applicable and that your criterion uphold it better than the opponents. It isn't about how many points you win, but winning the most important ones. If you can show that your side also upholds your opponents value- even better.

Coming from the speech side of things, I appreciate clear organization and speaking skills. Make me want to keep listening (or at least not want to stop). You can have a personality.

I am not a fan of tricks or trying to make it so there's nothing your opponent can really argue against. I want to see both sides being able to bring good ideas and counter things their opponents says. I want this to be a tough decision. Respect your opponents and me and have fun.

shyde@psd1.org

My paradigm addresses two central elements: civility and common good versus individual rights scenarios.

1. I'd like a revoltingly civil round please. Refrain from interruptions, name-calling, eye-rolling, and terse or inflammatory language. My bias is that incivility cripples any debate in an instant and squelches the learning and knowledge-sharing that can be gained from civil discourse. It ceases to be a debate with the introduction of incivility.
2. If you present an argument that favors individual rights, I'd like to see a mention of how it may or may not impact the common good , and vice versa - an argument focusing on the common good should have a consideration of any impact on individual rights.

I'm a parent of a debater. Assume that I don't know much.

I did high school debate, mostly LD, and I was decent. And I did some high school coaching on a volunteer basis. But that was a long time ago. For the past couple of decades I've been completely out of the world of debate. I think the most fundamental aspects of debate are probably pretty stable over time, but jargon and trendy arguments are always changing and evolving. So that's why I'd advise not making any assumptions about my debate knowledge. You can, however, count on me to be an enthusiastic, engaged, open-minded judge -- and one who is relatively fast on the uptake when things are explained. Explaining things (giving the "why") and doing this better than your opponent is likely to give you an edge.

DO NOT SPREAD. I have not trained my ear for spreading. And if I don't understand you, it will be as if you never said it.

I'd like to think of myself as an extremely objective, impartial, blank-slate debate judge open to any argument, but we are all probably much more anchored by our experience and world-view than we want to admit. So here's where I'm coming from: I'm a law professor at the University of Oklahoma. To me, debate is argument, and argument, fundamentally, is reason-giving. So I will strive to vote on the flow, but I am likely to reward debaters for being smart, and don't expect me to be swayed by undeveloped blips. Clarity matters a lot. I very much care about courtesy/decorum/civility and don't like rudeness.

(In writing this up, I benefitted from looking at, and borrowed some words and phrases from, the paradigms of Josh Zive and Victor Jih -- two people I think very highly of.)

(He/Him)

Lindale HS (2017-2021)

North Texas (2021-Present)

If you are a senior and graduating this year (whether you do PF, LD, or policy), UNT has a debate program! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via the email listed below and we can talk about what UNT debate can offer you!

Add me to the email chain zachjdebate@gmail.com

TL;DR

I am good for any substantive style of debate that you partake in, I have experience both debating and judging high-level policy, clash of civs, and K v K debates. Not as great for theory debates, particularly the proliferation of them in high school LD, but am more than able to evaluate those debates should they be necessary, just slow down a bit on these. I have a slight preference for kritikal debates. Aff's do not need to defend the resolution or the USFG but should have a topic link. I lean affirmative on Condo in HSLD, can go either way in policy.

For Prefs (Ranked from top to bottom)

Clash - 1

K - 1

Policy - 2

Phil - 4

Trad - 4

Theory - 4 (I refuse to believe this exists as an argument preference for people but I've known LDers in my time who called it their argument of choice so I figured I'd put it here)

Tricks - 5

My Experience:

I did policy at Lindale high school in East Texas, I competed in both traditional (Texas UIL) and national (TOC) circuits in policy and just about everything in between. At the University of North Texas I compete in both NDT debate and NFA-LD, Do what you do best, and don't change your general strategy for me, just be ethical and all will be okay

Individuals who have shaped the way I view debates: Colin Quinn, Louie Petit, Rory McKenzie, Cody Gustafson.

I flow on my laptop and would say I am about a 7/10 when it comes to speed compared to other circuit judges, just slow down a bit in dense and quick theory debates.

My general opinions I have about debate are the following:

Affirmatives should be tangentially related to the topic (I can be persuaded otherwise) but that doesn't require the reading of a plan or an endorsement of the USFG (I can be persuaded otherwise). I think that I probably have a slight bias affirmative in debates over T-USFG but don't let that persuade you against it as a 2NR choice.

Counterplan theory, PICS are definitely good, most CPs are good, but I lean affirmative on conditions, international, and object fiat. Though if these debates exist in the literature I can definitely be persuaded that these debates are educational. it's largely a question of the quality of the solvency advocate here. I enjoy a good theory debate as long as teams actively clash here, too often I see teams just reading generic 2NC/1NR condo shells and then moving on without answering the 2ACs shell.

Conditionality is bad in HSLD, though I can be persuaded otherwise of course. I don't have a preference in policy.

Topicality is not a voting issue in it of itself, 2NRs need to win an impact. A 2NR on T does not need to spend their entire time here, but your speech on T should include a clear link story and terminal impact. Simply being non-topical is not a reason to vote the team down, non-topicality as a link to the aff necessarily creating a model of debate that leads to "x" terminal impact is a reason to vote the team down.

0% Risk is possible

Speech times are non-negotiables.

Speaks start at 28.3 — your decisions can either add or subtract from that baseline. I shouldn't have to mention this but bigotry is clearly a loss and 0 speaks,

HS LD, I am bad for tricks debates and phil debates, obviously willing to adjudicate them but have next to no experience with these debates or the literature in phil debates. I will likely never vote for an RVI on principle, something absurd would need to happen for me to vote for one.

If you have any other, more specific questions just ask me before the round :)

I am a parent judge with limited exposure to Varsity LD Debate.

Please go slow to allow me to follow.

Email: knnmbd@yahoo.com

Hi!

My expectations for debaters:

--- Speak clearly and confidently in a medium pace when delivering your arguments.

--- Follow the speech and prep time limits strictly and exchange evidence in a timely way.

--- State a clear set of contentions and subpoints in your case.

--- Signpost in your speeches.

--- Try not to interrupt your opponents or talk over each other during cross-examination.

--- Show good sportsmanship and make debate fun and enjoyable!

Please send me your cases atshyla.kannambadi@gmail.com, it's easier for me to flow when I can read along.

Thank You.

(I go by Sai + they/them)

Quarry Lane 19, NYU 22

(skaravadi.2001@gmail.com) -- Pls use speechdrop, fileshare, or add me to the email chain! And feel free to ask me questions before round about my paradigm or judging, but pretty extensive notes here!

If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, pls don't hesitate to reach out!

I don't know how much this matters, but this is my 9th year in debate -- pls I'm so old. I debated for Quarry Lane in high school and then for NYU in college. I had 9 career TOC bids in high school LD, broke at the TOC, won a college policy tourney and reached late elims at others, and coached LD debaters who reached late elims at the TOC and other bid tourneys. I've also judged like 300 rounds of LD and policy at bid tournaments since 2019, including bid rounds and late elims. I care about my role as an adjudicator and educator, and also think extensively about my paradigm when making decisions, meaning I try to make sure nothing affects my decision that is not on here and I avoid intervention as much as possible to ensure the debate is in your hands, not mine. :))

UPDATE FOR TOC:

This is my last tournament in debate, so I am feeling more generous with speaks than usual, unless I get the ick! Check the bottom for more on how to avoid that.

Will be taking a bit longer to decide than usual since I know rounds are more high stakes for y'all (and will likely be closer), so please bear with me.

No tricks pls! :D

(Moral uncertainty --> util, regress and bindingness, aspec and plan flaw = yes, these are just framework or theory arguments -- those are fine and are just, but no im not evaluating the round before the end of the 2AR or voting for the resolved a priori -- you can ask me if I will evaluate/vote on X argument before the round, but the litmus test should be whether or not the argument is relevant in discussing the aff irl -- plan flaw is and paradoxes are not imo)

TLDR:

Pls go 70-80% speed. Sucker for a good K, techy phil debate, smart impacting on a spec shell standard, well-researched small advantage plan aff, etc. -- framing and impacts!!!!!

Tech > truth -- I aim to be as tab as I can and have experience reading, coaching, and judging every style of debate in LD -- I'll vote on anything, within reason. My approach to rounds has always been who do I need to do the least work for. That means you’re always better off with more judge instruction, clear weighing, impact comparison, and strong line by line as well as overview analysis. That’s obviously a lot (and LD rounds are short), so prioritize issues and collapse in later speeches. I think I probably have a relatively high threshold for warrants, which means quality > quantity.

I have specific sections below for everything, but larp is cute but please comparatively weigh, phil is dope but please collapse, K's are fun but you need to be clear and warrant things, T is I love and I default T > case, and theory is cool but idk what the brightline for spreading is and yes on disclosure but meh on docs, new aff's, open source, etc. -- not discouraging general disclosure theory tho. I am willing to vote on impact turns, perf cons, independent voting issues, etc. — just make them clear, warrant them, and don’t leave me with a ton of questions at the end of the round. I don't like lay debate -- you can spread, but just still answer stuff. Also, misgendering, slurs, etc. -- those are voters.

Also check my rant at the bottom on speed and off's!

My only hardcore paradigmatic policies are that I will not enforce an argument about what a debater should wear because I feel uncomfortable doing that (shoes theory, clothing theory, etc. will earn you an auto-loss) or anything that is overtly violent, but you are also welcome to ask me or have your coaches ask me about my comfort evaluating certain strategies or arguments.

Defaults only matter if not debated, but:

Substantive: comparative worlds, tech > truth, epistemic confidence, presume neg unless neg reads a counter-advocacy or reads 3+ off

Procedural: competing interps, no RVI's, drop the debater

SIDE-NOTE: If you don't want someone in the room, feel free to ask them to leave (or email/contact me privately if you are uncomfortable with having to say it yourself and I will ask them to leave).

For prefs -- I like to think I'm a good judge for you regardless of what you read (except tricks -- im over it), as long as you warrant and explain how I should evaluate arguments. I read everything during my career and have actually mostly judged non-K rounds (despite having mostly read K's as a debater) -- I feel confident I'm a good judge for really any style of debate because I'll grant anything with a warrant -- the bigger the claim, the more established the warrant should be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . So yes, I will grant your non-T aff and be interested, I will grant your framework warrants and be interested, I will grant your interps and be interested, and I will ALWAYS grant a well-researched and updated DA story, but I will also easily grant answers to any of these -- read what you want, just be creative!

SPECIFIC SECTIONS/TYPES OF ARGS:

Policy/LARP:

I don’t think there’s much of an issue here since this is my initial foundation, I defended plan aff's and DA's throughout my career, I was a west coast debater, I read policy strategies in college with my partner, coached a couple policy and LD kids who read topical plan aff's, and I love policy debate. Debate as you do and I doubt there’s gonna be a problem for me.

However, these debates do end up getting quite messy, especially in LD. I am a sucker for strong link overviews with impact calc that's also comparative. I think collapsing, impact overviews, and framing analysis can help here.

I'm a sucker for weighing and warrant comparison -- when I say comparative, I basically mean that you should also make sure you answer/deal with weighing arguments made by the other debater -- these debates can sometimes become frustrating to resolve as a judge because there's a lot of impacts thrown out in later speeches with weighing implications attached to them, but I'm often left having to resolve them or figure out who did that tiny bit of comparison that I can vote on -- you can easily win my ballot by telling me how to evaluate this/compare between weighing args -- you can call it what you want, framing or comparative weighing or second level impact calc -- I find it super persuasive and a smart technical move that often wins my ballot.

Don't be afraid to defend a policy aff against k's or phil -- I don't mind voting aff on Zanotti 14, but I'd rather you have a coherent justification for the aff being a good idea and a developed link turn strategy. Compare between the aff and the alt. Do framework comparisons if there's an NC and don't pretend Bostrom is enough. Also, adding in an impact that applies to marginalized populations could really help in debates where you want to go for a DA against a K aff, which shouldn't be hard to find since shtuff like climate change, war, and poverty affect those groups the most and also first.

DA's and CP's are fine and I have no problem here. I really like specific links and very specific politics scenarios, from like specific bills in Congress to international relations. I think 2 condo PIC's might be starting to push it, but that just means you should be ready to defend that you get them because I don't care as long as you answer any potential theory args.

Phil:

I’m mostly familiar with Butler's work and Kant, but also have experience with Epistemic Humility, Civic Republicanism, Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, Particularism, Agonism, Butler, Deleuze, Levinas, Hobbes, Rawls, Locke, Descartes, and skep (also of course, util of all forms). I've read into the literature of and/or defended all of these, but never studied them too in-depth academically and wouldn't call myself an expert -- I haven't had trouble judging them and actually enjoying hearing them, so just do your best and you should be fine. Also I love Kant LOL.

I default epistemic confidence, but am open to hearing epistemic modesty and/or other framing mechanisms for evaluating competing ethical theories -- but that's up to you to justify and win.

I think phil arguments are strategic due to the amount of credence I must grant them -- i.e., I don't think someone can ignore independent framework warrants like shying away from answering bindingness or regress -- but I would need you to slow down a tiny bit and collapse harder in later speeches. Again, you do you! I am happy to judge anything and love framework debate a lot.

I find Phil vs. K interactions really interesting, but both sides could benefit from specific warranting when it comes to this rather than just winning your own framework or theory of power, but I am just as willing to vote on Kant as I am to vote on a K.

I also really really like phil vs. phil debates -- these are some of the most interesting debates and I am impressed by both the technical proficiency and critical/logical thinking skills that debaters employ. I am likely to grant both debaters very high speaks in these debates if they are done well, but also really feel like I learn a lot in these rounds. This also includes like Kant vs. util, but I think something like ordo amoris vs. Deleuze would be so so interesting.

I am not very persuaded by author indicts of philosophers, but can be convinced if it is argued well -- BUT I have a higher threshold for this than a turn to the framework itself. For example, I won't auto-vote on Kant (as in the guy) is racist, unless someone proves that his theory itself also is and does the work of proving that thus the aff is as well, OR is able to prove to me why I should not evaluate any of the work that someone who is a racist philosopher/writer has done -- which is a valid argument to make, but again, it requires a LOT more work than simply saying it. Of course, this does not mean I won't vote someone down if they drop the argument and its implications, but you need to give me those implications.

To that end, you can't just end it at Kant or Hobbes (or X author) is racist -- explain to me why that's a voting issue/reason to drop the debater/argument because I'm so far not convinced by the super old and recycled cards everyone keeps reading against aff's that don't actually even cite primary source philosophers. And if you're defending a framework against these objections, stand your ground and defend your aff without being repugnant -- impact turning racism is NEVER ok, but you can definitely win that your framework guides against structural violence even if the original author sucks.

HOWEVER, this is a different story if they actually read cards/cite the author you are calling out -- i.e., if someone read a Kant card (like citing Immanuel himself lol) and you read Kant is racist, I don't see a real no link argument or a way to prove why their reading of Kant is uniquely necessary (i.e., they could just cite Korsgaard instead right?) -- at which point, the author is racist voter issue becomes very very persuasive to me (this is true regardless of whether it's a philosopher) -- however, this is pretty rare and it's 2024, so update your authors.

Theory:

Go for it. I read everything from solvency advocate theory to ROTB spec to body politics, so I as long as it’s not actively violent (I basically won't vote on clothing-related theory) and you're not being too frivolous -- it's fine with me, but the more frivolous it gets, the lower my threshold for responses gets ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Also have some notes on a couple specific shells near the bottom of this section.

My defaults: competing interps, drop the debater, no RVI’s — this is just how I will evaluate the theory debate if you don't give me paradigm issues, but please do and I'm more than willing to vote on reasonability or grant an RVI if it's won.

Reading paradigm issues in your second speech collapsing to a shell is a bit late and persuades me to grant the other side leeway on controlling them, but still debatable I guess (does not mean I will give leeway to brightlines on reasonability, just reasonability itself).

On IVI's -- impact turns are not RVI's, but rather independent voters/offense, and I still haven't heard a single persuasive or compelling reason I shouldn't vote on an impact turn -- feel free to read your no impact turns dump, but I recommend just cleaning up the flow by answering them instead -- a lot of impact turns to both T and theory are just cross-apps of case or huge conflations of arguments -- point that out, make it a link, put offense on that too or make args for why the shell is a prior issue in the case that you go for it -- however you deal with it, deal with it. I feel that the easiest strategy is just to explain why the DA/impact turn doesn't link, why the shell comes first, and/or why something else you're going for (state good, cap K, etc.) disproves the internal link to the impact turn/independent voter.

Random note on disclosure these days -- I'm not that persuaded by these shells that you should send full on docs before rounds or that you must open source in order for negs to prep, etc. -- not to be an old zealot, but the norm when I was in high school was mostly just to disclose cites, tags, and the first 3 + last 3 words of cards -- we were fine and had more in-depth clash than what I've seen people read these days, so I am not that convinced -- THAT BEING SAID, I will still vote on it, but don't expect me to be that excited bout it or give you the highest speaks + I will have a low threshold for answers. However, if someone is fully not disclosing past rounds or telling you what the aff is gonna be, that changes the matter ofc -- still fine for disclosure, just not convinced that people need to give you every single word that they're about to read

Also not sure how I feel about spreading theory -- feels arbitrary to delineate as a judge where I draw a line between what is too fast and what is not. I'll vote on it, but idk -- the argument that it is impossible to delineate what is too fast prolly makes reasonability super persuasive. That being said, if you're obviously going fast, then LOL it seems reasonable that I would consider that to be spreading and evaluate the debate based on the standards. Either way, going for this in the 2N isn't really the move for me and I hope it's not for you. I'll still vote on it, but ugh, you and I both don't want to bring the debate to this issue (pls). If you read spreading bad and spread, I will prolly tank your speaks. Should be self-explanatory why.

Side note -- if you impact spreading bad or other shells to ableism, maybe think about that -- debate is of course extremely ableist, but I find it paternalistic to generally claim that disabled debaters are unable to debate able-bodied debaters who spread or speak fast. That's not to say I won't vote on it or that I don't think there is some truth to the claim, but I do think you should watch how you phrase the argument at least -- i.e., "disabled debaters cannot debate unless you disclose early cause they have to think on their feet" -- this sounds problematic and like you're saying that disabled people can't critically think in the moment, but "it is better to not spread to encourage access for people with certain disabilities" -- this sounds more agreeable. Be very careful when you talk about ableism because I have heard very problematic collapses that I am not happy with.

Topicality:

I read topicality against most K aff’s that I hit my senior year and every time I hit one in college -- including both defend the topic and read a policy action -- and I read spec bad against like every larp aff my senior year too. I love T, despite reading a ton of method/performative K aff's, but I have no biases here and can be persuaded to vote either way.

I have no issues with you going for 1-off T-FW against K aff’s and I’m more than willing to vote on it, but I do think there are ways to win my ballot easier. Having a clear TVA is always persuasive, but what I mean by this is not just like a literal plan text that mentions the identity group the aff talks about — take it further and explicitly explain to me why that TVA is a much better model for debate than the version of the aff that was the 1AC.

I think either having offense on the case page or doing clear interactions between the aff offense and the T flow is persuasive, and also useful when I write my ballot. I’d prefer you tell me a story in the 2NR and really sell your model of debate to me rather than pretending T has nothing to do with the aff. In other words, it is not sufficient to win that debate is solely a competitive game for me, I want you to really explain the implications of that to me because that’s a pretty bold claim considering all that this activity has been for a ton of people. I'll vote on it either way if you win it on a technical level, but this also leaves room for the aff to grandstand on your model being exclusive.

When debating T — have a clear counter-interp and defend your model of debate. I am more than willing to vote on an impact turn and am down for all the drama of various T strategies. Regardless, have a strong and robust defense of whatever model you choose to defend. I have been on and love debating from both sides of the issue (to some extent -- some language y'all be using in both your topicality extensions and your topicality answers are very iffy), and I find these to be some of the best rounds. I am here for it.

Most of the arguments for why I shouldn't vote on independent voting issues are terrible and not persuasive, BUT I still need y'all to answer them. Collapsing to a single DA on T in the 2AR is a great strat for me and I've done this myself in the past, but you have to answer these args. That being said, I've also been on the other side (kicking T) and feel that the easiest strategy is just to explain why the DA doesn't link, why T is a prior question, and/or why something else you're going for (state good, cap K, etc.) disproves the internal link to the impact turns/independent voters ---- (also check my note on impact turns in the theory section since some of this is copied from there/similar).

Quick side note on Nebel -- I have not read much into Nebel, but it's not very persuasive to me cause it sounds like a colonial norm and I'm not American/English was not my first language -- this does not mean I will auto-vote on grammar/textuality is racist, but I can be very strongly persuaded to and I think negatives need to have a robust defense prepared against this -- as in, take it serious and engage the argument by explaining to me why the argument is not racist/answering the aff arguments, but don't assume I will vote on fairness outweighs or semantics first in a scenario where you are losing on English grammar is racist.

That being said, a simple spec bad shell with a limits standard gets the job done and is a very great strat in front of me.

Kritik’s:

Yes. This is what I’m most comfortable evaluating and what I've spent the most time debating, coaching, and also studying academically. However, I will hold you to really knowing your lit -- buzzwords need to make sense. That being said, I'm pretty familiar with almost every area of critical literature that I've heard of or know of in debate. I like seeing how people use K lit to formulate interesting advocacies or methods, I like seeing new K shells and scholarship (like 2023/24 lol), and I also simultaneously like when someone defends a classic K but does it really really well.

I’m most familiar and comfortable with identity based lit -- especially Critical Race Theory and Antiblackness, Queer Theory and Queer of Color Studies, South Asian/South Asian American Studies, Postcolonialism, and Performance Studies. I'm most familiar with antiblackness, postcolonialism, queer theory, biopolitics, and necropolitics -- some of my fav authors: José Esteban Muñoz, Sarah Ahmed, Tiffany Lethabo King, Alexander Weheliye, Jasbir Puar, Achilles Mbembe, Marquis Bey, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. I'm also comfy with Foucault, Baudrillard, Derrida, Freud, Lacan, Deleuze, etc. -- all the pomo shtuff is fair game. I don't really think there's a K you'd read that I'd be completely unfamiliar with or uncomfortable with, but I also don't care what K it is and am happy to listen -- get creative. :))

Leverage the K against other flows and put offense on different layers — if you’re winning a case turn, implicate it both through the thesis of the K and independently.

Engage the thesis claims and answer the links in the 1AR.

Perms should probably have a text, but I'm open to the 2AR having leeway to explain them. But if you just yell "perm -- do the aff and graffiti the alt" -- I'm not gonna be very inclined to vote aff if I have no explanation of why that does anything. Have a relatively clear warrant and explanation of the perm that you can develop in the 2AR if you collapse to it.

Kicking the alt is fine — win the links and warrant presumption. I’m also fine with all your K tricks, but I’m not gonna stake the round on the 2AR dropping that fiat is illusory ABSENT some clear warranting and judge instruction with it, as well as some comparison between your claim and a 1AR/2AR arg about the value of simulating policymaking or whatnot.

Also, please be aware of your own privilege -- have a strong and robust defense of why you should be able to read the K, what your relationship is to the literature, and how I should evaluate the round given all that. This doesn't mean you need to run from reading the K -- just be able to answer these questions and defend your position. This applies to black studies, indigenous studies, queer theory, etc. -- I can be persuaded to vote either way on these issues.

Update -- you know -- I am slowly getting the ick regarding how people are instrumentalizing literature of specific groups for ballots -- if you are not part of a community and decide to read the literature anyways, but you clearly have a surface level understanding of it, I will be unhappy -- I am tired of cishets using queer pessimism, able-bodied people reading disability pessimism, and white people reading afro-pessimism without any real engagement with the literature -- and I don't think non-indigenous people reading settler colonialism is somehow distinct, nor do I think that non-black people reading other structural criticisms about antiblackness is distinct enough for it to mean that you are somehow using images of suffering more ethically. I am vexed with the inauthentic way that y'all are reading this literature, so I am watching with a very close eye regarding CX answers, the way you structure the K, the authors you read, and the 2N explanations. I won't auto-drop you or anything, but I do reserve the right to drop you on the ick if it's obvious you are not taking the literature seriously. I have had conversations with other judges and coaches who feel similarly, so read things at your own risk from now on. I still think you can read them, but I need you to do it at a level where it is clear you care and know what you're talking about.

Along those lines, since this has become a serious area of discussion on the LD debate circuit -- non-black people reading antiblackness is ok BUT you should be prepared to discuss what your role as a non-black person is, both in reading the K and in relation to antiblackness, and pls do it well. I will vote on arguments for why non-black people shouldn't read antiblackness, but I am also open to voting the other way. I think y'all need to stop running from the challenge of answering the argument because the scholarship is great, BUT be prepared in case the argument is made.

I am also not happy that everyone has just decided to turn to reading (and commodifying) literature about Native American/indigenous peoples instead, especially when debaters actively say they don't pay attention to the authors or only read "X" argument so it's fine -- I am persuaded by arguments that this should not be allowed and find it more persuasive due to this occurrence that literature or images of suffering about a group being used to justify a ballot are instances of detached commodification. You don't need a card, but do need warrants. Bringing up the history of debate and also specific practices in LD is great. Pessimistic claims are somewhat problematic, but more so is using violence against a group as an image to claim you're radically decolonial and using an arbitrary method or alternative to claim you do care about them. I will watch these debates very closely due to the way that debaters are behaving.

On the issue of queer theory -- I am skeptical of whether someone should be able to speak from the closet to read ontological/epistemological, etc., claims about queer people, especially being a queer trans* person of color myself -- if you are reading queer theory, I think you should be prepared to defend whether a cishet person should be allowed to read it, since if you are unwilling to disclose your queerness then that would enable the practice of non-queer people reading queer pess. I don't think outing DA's are that persuasive to me (in these specific circumstances only) if someone asks you whether you are queer while reading this because it should matter whether or not you are and you can choose to say that you are unwilling to disclose that, BUT that still begs the question of whether or not one should be able to do that. That being said, I will vote on an outing DA if it's won, but this is an answer that debaters can make that I believe is a relevant discussion and legitimate answer. I am vexed by openly cisheterosexual people turning to queer theory because they think that they can win every round on an outing DA, so I have decided to add this here to pressure more authentic engagements with the literature base.

Kritikal/performative/planless aff’s:

Yes. These are my favorite aff’s and I find them super interesting. I read them for like 7 years, I've coached them for like 5 years, and I've debated/judged them for longer. I don’t care if you defend the topic or not, but be prepared to defend your aff and all the choices you made in it. I also did read topicality/framework against most non-T aff's I debated lol, so I am happy to vote either way, but I am definitely a good judge for these aff's.

From the moment that I realize the aff is performative and/or critical, I am watching very closely to see how you perform it, defend it, and frame it. I also physically am usually watching you and making eye contact because I know that part of your discussion is also about me and the fact that I am not a passive decision-maker. I know that can make some people uncomfy, so I apologize in advance and promise I'm not like staring at you with bug-eyes or anything, but just noticing the choices you make and the way the aff is presented. I appreciate the fact that you made a lot of intentional choices when writing and formulating the aff, so I am respecting your use of them, especially in CX as well.

Be creative. Have fun. Express yourself. The best kritikal and performative aff’s that I have seen are a result of how they are presented, written, and defended — I think these can be some of the best or some of the worst rounds, but the only thing I’ll hold you to is defending something clear, whether a method, advocacy statement, praxis, or whatnot. Just be clear and tell me how to evaluate the round, considering most of these aff’s ask for a shift in how to evaluate and view debate itself.

Do not read these in front of me just because it’s what I did. Also, feel free to ask me any questions — I’d be more than happy to help you figure out some aspects of how you wanna explore reading this and I know I definitely benefitted from judges who did that for me, so I got you. With that being said, here's some cool things I'd love to see.

Something I loved doing was impact turning presumption args — 1AR’s and 2AR’s that can effectively do this and collapse to it are dope and I’m here for it.

I think CX is a place to perform too -- I love performances that somehow extend beyond just the 1AC because they bring so much more of the drama of debate into question. However, I have also seen many people do this in ways that aren't very tasteful and end up either confusing me or triggering me. On the other hand, I've also found that these can be some of the most brutal and successful CX strategies when done well.

Regardless, don't feel shy about testing the waters in front of me, within reason. However, fire hazards are real and pls warn me about flashing lights (personal medical reason). In other words -- sure, go off, but don't get me (or yourself) in trouble or do anything hazardous/risky. Also, I don't think it's ok for you to infringe on someone else's literal ability to debate, in terms of doing anything to their flows or picking up their computer for whatever reason -- please don't. I won't be happy and coaches/schools won't be happy. Other than that, have fun! I like hearing creative arguments and fun stuff that makes me pay attention and wake up. :))

ANSWERING THESE -- Presumption is fine, but I’m probably not gonna be persuaded by the classic arg that the aff does not affect how I view the world, feel, etc. This is not to say that I will not vote on a ballot presumption argument if it is argued well and won, but don't expect me to bank the round on a 5 second shadow extension that lacks clear warrants or weighing. I prefer presumption arguments to be reasons for why the performance of the aff is inconsistent with the method or other parts of the 1AC somehow, lack of solvency, vagueness, etc., and make sure the turns are impacted out effectively and weighed against affirmative's.

State good is an underused and undervalued strategy, clashes with these aff's so enables you to avoid impact turns on T or other issues that rely on the aff winning internal links for why certain state-oriented procedures are bad, and is a great option (be wary of your language, but hasn't been an issue so far).

I do not like Rickert or other arguments that are like "oh subjectivity is not real in debate, but is elsewhere so please leave" type args -- I think these are actively racist. BUT I think there are certain specific issues you can push on.

What is the advocacy/method past the 1AC? What is the value or impact of the performance? Why is there a binding reason to vote aff? How does the aff resolve skep/induction issues? How does the aff relate to the other debater and/or the judge? Why is debate bad, but also shifted to being good through the aff/voting aff? etc. etc. -- all of these are relevant considerations and valid points of contestation -- i.e., whether or not the ways the aff responds to these questions are good or sufficient.

Also really like K links as case turns against these aff's, skep is fair but be wary of your language and type of skep ofc, counter-K's are fun, T is great, and phil is so interesting and I wish more people did Kant vs. K-aff's (or other frameworks) because these are some of the most interesting rounds I've had or heard.

For Policy/CX Debate:

I'm cool with whatever you read and would prefer you do what you're best at! I'm chill and will follow anything -- I was a college policy debater at NYU and I went to RKS 2018 -- I've also judged and coached high school policy, read every style of debate, and I still currently actively cut both K lit and policy args -- I also read a ton of performative args from cardless aff's about throwing a party to queer bombs, tons of K's (queer theory, gender studies, critical race theory, indigenous studies, disability studies, and pomo), but also read a ton of straight up strats from a Bahrain aff to the classic politics DA + framework/T against almost every non-T aff -- I have been on both sides of most issues, but I don't really care about my opinions and I'm down with whatever you wanna read -- so you do you. Specific sections below might be useful (minus the tricks stuff for LD, etc. -- not gonna vote on tricks, frivolous theory, etc. in policy).

I don't care if you read an aff about great power competition and extinction or a K about settler homonationalism -- I feel comfortable and confident in my ability to render the right decision no matter what you read, but my favorite rounds are when a team reading a plan aff really knows their scenario and evidence super well or when a team reading a K provides really in-depth explanations and examples -- don't adapt your style itself to me, just focus on what you do best and win it. :))

My approach to rounds is typically to vote for the team that I need to do less work for to determine a ballot -- I need warrants for claims that you make and I think these warrants need to be defended in cross-ex, explained in later speeches, and developed with contextualization and examples -- meaning you need to make sure you warrant everything because I will feel uncomfortable voting for something I cannot adequately explain back to y'all without intervention. This kinda just means I wanna hear internal links and their warrants, and/or a strong overview defense of your impacts -- judge instruction, collapsing in later speeches, and framing are your best bets.

I especially think framing specifically is important -- this doesn't mean winning util or a role of the ballot necessarily, but rather please just do weighing, impact comparison, and draw me a ballot story by telling me what matters most in the round in later speeches.

Everything else is pretty straight forward -- tech > truth, judge instruction, and you do you (unless it's overtly discriminatory).

I do really like K's though and this is where most of my background in debate lies -- through debate and my undergrad coursework, I read a ton of Muñoz, Puar, Spivak, Said, Halberstam, Stanley, Ahmed, Lamble, Mbembe, Tinsley, Hartman, Warren, Wilderson, Weheliye, Wynter, Spillers, Gumbs, King, Edelman, Preciado, Bersani, Nash, Bey, Gilmore, Davis, Gillespie, Mignolo, Rodriguez, Morgensen, Eng, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Derrida, Deleuze, Freud, Lacan, and I'm sure I could keep going -- this is mainly to say that I will likely contextually understand what you read, regardless of my familiarity with the literature. I think I am a great judge for any critical arguments and feel super comfortable evaluating these, but also thoroughly enjoy the scholarship and the creativity that debaters employ when reading these arguments. Personally, I also read cardless aff's using original poetry as well as critical aff's that were very close to the topic/resolution -- I don't care how specific or generic your arguments are, I care about how well you go for and explain them!

For policy/plan aff's and teams -- I usually get bored in these debates ngl, but I think I'm a sucker for a really good link story on a DA, straight turns, and strategic advantage counterplans. I think condo is good in policy debate and feel like the condo bad debate is lost on me. Despite everything above, I enjoy the state good or heg good defense and think that I can easily be persuaded to vote on arguments about why we have to focus on policymaking/reform. Do good weighing, impact framing, internal link warranting, evidence comparison, and meta-weighing. I also love T-framework, T-defend the topic, and other topicality arguments -- I also like T or spec bad against non-topical/extra-topical plan aff's -- but I need these arguments to be well impacted out. I think fairness is just an internal link to education really, but I'll vote on either one and I just need the ballot story to be clear. You do need to answer impact turns, TVA's and switch side seem like game over you won T type issues, most T arguments are just about limits or prep and clash, and I am great for T.

Feel free to hit me up and ask me any questions if you have em on either FB or my email.

For PF:

Pls read the TLDR right below this, but I am relatively experienced with debate, so I don't think you need to adapt much. I also went to Quarry Lane for high school till 2019 (QLS was very involved in PF so I'm no stranger to the event) and traveled with the PF debaters everywhere, but also did a bit of PF at smaller tourneys and judged it before. I am down to vote for anything, just don't be racist/homophobic/misogynistic, etc. I also read a lot of performance args and K's as a debater, so that's something I'm comfortable with -- BUT don't read it just to read it, I'm also very chill with policy-esque args and general topic area args + would rather hear what you're good at than a random K that you pulled up.

ALSO -- I have trouble following card names sometimes cause y'all do be paraphrasing and moving past things real quick, so please reference arguments rather than X author name so I can follow you -- I don't expect this to be a big issue, but if you're ramping up the speed and gonna give me one-liners as you move between cards, either send me the doc so I can follow OR reference impacts over last names.

Speaks:

So you want a 30? -- I loved getting speaker awards, so just do you and I got you, but here's some incentives + random things LOL

1. Pls do NOT use my name unless we know each other LOL
2. + speaks for everyone if you have the email chain set up before I walk into the room
3. Clarity and enunciation > speed please
4. If you are able to give a solid speech at a good speed where I can write/type out every word and feel very part of the process, I will be VERY happy
5. Passion and ethos are dope — I don’t care what form this is in, but really sell whatever you read to me
6. I like tasteful references to things -- drag race, anime, Marvel or Disney, sitcoms, etc. -- don't really know much about sports so that might go over my head, but I like creative args that draw on other art forms, whether media/film or otherwise
7. I average a 29.5+ and give higher speaks when you slow down, are very clear, or when you collapse really well
8. If you go on your phone during someone else's speech, you are likely to get the lowest possible speaks I can give without having to talk to tab :))

I have become quite generous with speaks, but humor, creative args, or strong execution is the key! I'm more than willing to give out a 30 and have increasingly done so. Do you and make sure you signpost, warrant, and slow down on important things -- I appreciate passion, strong research and/or analysis, and well-crafted strategies! I also think a smart CX helps with ethos and also definitely will help bump your speaks -- many debates are also lost and won in CX ultimately.

If you slow down to an easily flowable speed and give a good speech, I will be far more likely to be persuaded to vote for you and give you a 30 (or 29.5+). I find that I am also most persuaded by debaters who close doors, slow down and impact things out, and avoid silly args. Go to the bottom for more qualms of mine!

Please give me trigger/content warnings -- go for it, just warn me -- important to me as both a judge and participant in the round — if you’re going to be talking about graphically sensitive topics, please give me (and everyone in the room) a heads up -- this does not mean you don't get to read it tho -- you don't need my permission, just let us all prepare emotionally/mentally

Speed and Off's Rant: I am going to say clear a lot more to ask you to slow down andI think I will need you to go AT LEAST 70% of your top speed. I want to be able to hear every word, but I also think this is important to check for clipping. I think that we should preserve the value of debates through contestation, which I find is less possible when someone spreads through a ton of arguments waiting for something to be dropped, and I also just find myself exhausted listening to those debates because it feels like a waste of everyone's time. I also am just unable to flow some of this most of the time, which is not unique to just me and is a common shared experience of many judges. I believe that the ways that people are spreading through a ton of off case positions at incredibly high speeds is problematic because I find it rather difficult to follow and I should not need to rely on docs to flow you but I cannot hear these words, I find it hard to check if someone is clipping, I don't think I should encourage this practice, I don't think there is or has ever been a need to speak that fast, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, I have found and experienced situations where debaters use speed to get away with performing/reading racist and violent arguments, which I think I have an ethical obligation to correct for by at least making a relevant note here.

SO with that in mind -- please do not spread through analytics -- there is absolutely no way I am going to get all of these down and if you spread through these, it makes me very sad because I do want to get every argument but I just will not be able to.

I also will not be flowing after the 4th off and will dock speaks. If there are more than 4 off's, I also feel comfortable with the 1AR getting up and telling me not to evaluate it since this is on my paradigm. I also think that more than 4 off's will lower my threshold for responses and 2AR spin.

Finally, I have also decided that more than 3 off means I should definitely presume aff under a role of the ballot where I am supposed to vote for the better debater. I think that more than 3 off makes the debate quite structurally difficult for the aff, so I believe the aff did the better debating.

That being said, if you read more than 4 off after seeing me on the pairing, I think we have bad blood from the beginning of the round. Choose your positions with care, defend them, and focus on relevant substantive discussions. If you think you need more than 4 off to beat an aff, you are reading 4 bad off's.

Some qualms of mine (these will affect speaks):

1. I will not give you a 30 if you ask for it.
2. Non-black folx who read anti-blackness specifically against black folx will prolly lose in front of me (I have not yet seen it happen), but I am likely to give you pretty low speaks either way -- however, non-black folx reading anti-blackness generally is fine.
3. I am happy to vote on non-black folx should not read afropess and/or antiblackness, but also to vote for the idea that it's ok -- this is a debatable issue for me -- and I also think that it's debatable whether a non-indigenous person should be reading certain strains of set col (i.e., people who are not Native American reading set col about Native Americans) -- I can be persuaded to vote either way and think this applies to every group-specific strain of literature
4. I will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable sorry and yes, that means I will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — I don't feel comfortable deciding what children should wear
5. If you are reading a card with more than one color highlighted in it, please remove the highlights of what you're not reading -- it really messes with me and I have issues processing that -- it's not a huge deal, but it will help me adjudicate better
6. Evidence ethics is quite important to me -- just cite stuff and use EasyBib if you are unsure how -- lack of citations is a big issue (the minimum is the author name, name of the book/article, where it was published, and when) and so are clipping, etc.
7. If you do an evidence challenge -- I will stop the round, use NSDA rules standards, and vote -- W 30 and L 0
8. Pronouns are important — misgendering is not cool w me, so try your best — I recommend defaulting to “they” anyways -- I will vote on misgendering
9. If you answer something someone didn't read and skipped, I will not be happy -- you can ask for marked docs tho! -- be prepared for CX and please flow
10. Please send a doc as soon as you stop prep -- putting together the doc is prep time imo (emailing is not, but I will be upset if you spend more than 30 secs before saying "sent")

Please email speech docs to: mei4judge@gmail.com

TLDR; Flay judge; did policy debate at the national level back in college (this was a REALLY long time ago), so treat me as somebody who mostly has no idea what you are talking about, I'm not up to date on the current policy meta.

General:

Tech>truth, tabula rasa until you're racist/sexist/homophobic/personally offensive in any way, in which case I will instantly drop you with the lowest speaks possible. Defense is not sticky, weighing in the 2AR is imperative, make sure you extend arguments made in the ac/nc clearly across the flow and signpost well so I can flow you, especially if you're speaking fast. Tell me why cards actually matter instead of just throwing around their names in rebuttal. Trad>circuit debate, give me voters in the 1nr/2ar, I will try to remain as noninterventionist as possible and evaluate based off the flow. I look for you to creatively extend your contentions and CPs and think out of the box in your 1ar/2ar/2nrs, those are interesting for me.

Prog arguments:

I hate speed, I'm not the best flower and I'll probably drop some of your arguments if you spread. I strongly dislike/don't really understand k affs, kritiks, friv t, and non-topical arguments. Avoid tricks as I wouldn't know what hit me and won't vote you up or down for them.

VC/phil debate:

Go for it. Phil debate is an integral part of LD. I default util in the absence of any framing, but if one side offers framing and the other side does not, I'll evaluate based off of framing presented. Just make sure to keep it understandable and don't throw singular cards from random philosophers around as a complete framework.

Coach at Edina HS (LD, speech), Isidore Newman (LD) and University of Minnesota (policy)

PSA: I am done with debaters not flowing. Flowing is debate 101. If you ask more than one "flow clarification" question in a way that indicates you were not flowing your opponent's speech, do not expect speaker points higher than a 27.5. If your opponent asks a flow clarification question, you may simply tell them they should have flowed.

I've judged and coached pretty much all formats and styles of debate. I keep a rigorous flow, usually on paper, and I will evaluate the debate using the judge instruction that the debaters in the round give me. You should be clear and give me pen time when switching between flows. I care a lot about evidence, and my favorite debates are ones that involve well-researched and thought out positions.

I will not vote on an argument pertaining to conduct out of round or the opposing team's character.

I am uninterested in hearing “content warning theory” unless it is for content that is objectively disturbing. There is no reason to present a graphic depiction of violence or SA in a debate, even with a content warning. Reading content warning theory on “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” is unnecessary and trivializing.

College Policy:

I exclusively read Ks when I was competing. Now mostly coaching policy arguments. I see a lot of clash debates, some KvK debates, and a few policy debates. Topic knowledge is medium.

Condo is good, but I can be persuaded either way. Judge kick is a logical extension of condo, unless you win it isn't.

Ks: Framework is where I start my evaluation of the round. You should be explicit about what your interp means for the debate if you win it and compare models. AFF teams defending a plan should read more cards about their AFF and less generic K blocks.

Competition debates for most process CPs should be unwinnable, but NEG teams often end up ahead due to subpar AFF debating.

T-USFG: Fairness is fine, clash makes less sense unless you do a good job of explaining an external impact. 2NRs need to engage with case somehow.

National Circuit LD:

Flow. You must use CX time or prep time to ask questions about what cards were read. If you don't do this, I will start your prep time for you and subtract speaker points.

Decent for philosophy arguments. I think a lot of LD debaters struggle to justify utilitarianism and more NEG debaters should take advantage of this.

Theory arguments: I am likely to conclude that rejecting the argument, not the team solves. Reasonability is underutilized. I have voted on "frivolous theory" before, but it needs to be debated technically and cannot rely on tagline extensions.

Tricks: Probably not the best judge for you. I need to be able to explain back the warrant for your argument to be able to vote on it. Sometimes "tricks" arguments meet this threshold, but often they do not.

Traditional Circuit LD:

I can judge whatever you put in front of me. Impact calculus matters a lot. I don't want to see arguments unrelated to the topic--my litmus test is that your argument must prove the resolution true or false. That means unconventional arguments are fine, but non-topical Ks or theory arguments are something I'd rather not see (unless your opponent also prefers to have a national circuit style debate).

I believe that a good debate should consist of fair, logical, and followable argumentation.

Please debate in a manner that would be understandable to a general audience and speak in a way that can be easily followed. A little bit of speed when reading evidence is understandable, but please keep the argumentation and analysis of key evidence points at a normal speaking pace. Assertiveness and respect is favored over aggressiveness.

Overall, a clean, fair debate is the objective.

Peninsula

gordondkrauss@gmail.com

Offense-defense. The aff should defend a topical plan and the neg should defend a topicality violation, a competitive alternative, or the status quo. No zero risk, so presumption is impossible. Non-extinction impacts are relevant. The sole purpose of my ballot is to decide the winner / loser of a single debate.

Cross-ex is mandatory and cannot be used as prep. You must ask questions like "what did you read?" during cross-ex.

Counterplans. Most process counterplans should lose to a theory argument. Intrinsic perm unpersuasive because textual competition is dumb. Evenly debated, it would be difficult to convince me that international fiat is good, and it would be even harder to convince me that the neg can fiat random ideas. Counterplans should propose substantive solutions to the harms the 1AC identified. Conditionality is good. 1nc theory arguments are not.

Kritiks. I like Ks that disprove the truth of the 1ac, but I'm not a big fan of Ks of fiat. The neg needs a link to the plan or its justifications.

Philosophy. You don't have to read all the cards, but a few that say something would be nice. I will not consider skepticism or permissibility because I will not vote on defense (see presumption above). I like debates about the contention and creative strategies.

Topicality. Going for topicality is easy. I'm persuaded by reasonability and arbitrariness arguments but I'm equally good for aff ground. Plan in a vacuum depends, but usually not a winner.

Hello, I am a parent judge with no formal experience judging LD. Please speak clearly (do not spread), and if I can't understand your arguments, it's not going to be evaluated. Minimize use of abbreviations (instead of aff, say affirmative, instead of util, say utilitarianism). Please keep your own times. Do not run any Ks, Ts, tricks, or DAs with crazy impact scenarios. If you want the best evaluation from me, the round needs to be kept very traditional. Weighing the values and the arguments under the values will likely be the best route to the ballot.

I tend to prefer reason and logic for arguments instead of emotion and empathy. Good luck to all competitors!

i have (not so) recently shortened this paradigm cuz it was getting really ranty - if you would like to see my thoughts on specific arguments, feel free to look at my rant doc

Intro

• I’m Eva (they/them) - please just call me Eva in round instead of judge. I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating. I primarily coach traditional debate, but when I bring kids onto the circuit they typically go for theory and K heavy strats

• Email: evathelamberson@gmail.com put me on the chain but speechdrop is better :) i think docs are a good practice even for lay debaters and i would prefer if you send analytics

• Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds

TL;DR FOR PREFS i have come to the conclusion that i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the rant doc if you're interested in my specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously

i believe debate is a game and it's not my job to tell you how to play it; i will be happiest when you are debating the way you enjoy the most and are best at

i consider myself a fairly flexible judge and try not to be biased toward any particular style. however, in very close clash rounds, i may lean towards arguments i find to be simpler/easier to vote for or that i understand better. to be open about my biases, i will say that i find myself voting for theory, phil, and tricks more than ks and all the above more than policy

accessibility:

• round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, i would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.

• pls give me a heads up if you're gonna read explicit discussions of self harm or suicide. you can still read them in front of me but i would like a warning as early as possible - email or messenger is the fastest way to reach me during tournaments

• DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND. on this subject, i am a huge germaphobe - i will be wearing a mask probably until the end of time, don't worry i'm not sick, i just don't want to get sick. if there are covid precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.)

She/Her

If you know you know.

2/18/24 Update - Final Update:

Abstractly T-FW is true, but concretely K Affs still have the ability to win these debates because 95% of all topics are reactionary. In other words, I'm a T hack but I'll vote for the K Aff if you beat T.

I am an experienced parent judge (lay style, not circuit style).

I started judging in Jan 2022. Please minimize excessive spreading.

I like well-constructed, linear arguments that bear directly on the debate topic.

I do not generally comprehend "meta-rhetoric" (that is, arguments about the merits or validity of the debate question itself).

My email address for sending evidence and cases is joe_lee@yahoo.com

I appreciate contentions that are explained clearly and in an organized manner. Prefer fewer meaningful arguments over many less impactful ones. Take a few sentences to explain more important arguments, otherwise I might miss them. When referring back to cards made in earlier speeches, it's helpful to mention the essense of the studies rather than just the name of the author. Strongly prefer reasonable analysis over taking arguments to the extreme ending up in nuclear war.

LD: I look at the debate from a traditional lense. Value/Criterion -> link to your Contentions. I'm expecting clash throughout. You may read fast (but not too fast) you should enunciate. Voting blocks at the end help summarize the debate and that's my preference to hear in the final ARs. Unlikely to weigh counter-plans. LD is a value style of debate. Resolution is absolute unless specified. I'm very tabula rasa with 99% of arguments. However, if it's something completely off the wall I'm not going to weigh it. However, it's your opponent's job to still attack that specific argument (if it has some miniscule form of credence). You don't need to spend much time dismissing it in your rebuttals if it's non-sensical. No K's, Theories, Piks, other random things.

I want to see a Value and a Criterion. Both, that's TWO. What do you value, how do you get there (criterion).

CX: Most important part of CX for me: Would I rather live in Neg world or Aff world. But I will evaluate K's Kritiques, Theory. However, a large percentage of the round will come down to that. If you want to go off-case then do so. There will be no on-case ROB. You will need to thoroughly explain your off-case arguments. Don't assume I'm familiar with the literature. I would like to hear an overview attached to it. Doesn't need to be written but certainly needs to be explained. You will need to pass all mechanisms needed to earn my ballot.

PFD: Traditional lense. Clash is expected. Summarize key voting issues. The debate should center around the topic. Whoever can display their case is stronger than their opponents (makes more sense logically, with impacts) wins the debate.

Congress: Presentation is big for me. Think Extemp but with actual arguments and clash

Another thing; Let's say your opponent failed to attack your case in any of those speaking blocks where they must do so. In your next speech just go ahead and say that and save us all all this time so we can move on with our lives. No need to continue droning onward if your opponent just literally dropped the entire round unbeknownst to themselves. I wouldn't put this here if it didn't happen before.

Outside of the above you should be using all your time. I'm sure there's something either A.) You missed or B.) You can add some analytical analysis of something throughout the round.

Use speechdrop.net (Make everyone's lives easier)

At the end of every debate round there should be voters and weighing. Do that.

Also, let's not make it awkward after the round. If you want an RFD then just ask.

One more thing. Do Not say "Latinx." En lieu use the gender neutral term "Latino." ¿Entiendes?

Email: andrewjlopez120@gmail.com

TL;DR If you run Ks in anything other than LD, you probably want to strike me. If you run performances or non-topical Affs in any debate event, you definitely want to strike me.

Background: Debated for 4 years at Claremont High School (PF, circuit Parli, Congress, and, very briefly, LD). Currently coaching Parli, PF, and LD at my alma mater.

General: I try to be as non-interventionist as possible, so tech > truth. Although I list several argument preferences here, I won’t automatically disregard an argument just because I’m biased against it. If you run it well, I’ve got no problem voting on it. Just know that I’ll be more sympathetic to stock responses against certain arguments.

Evidence: Ev ethics still matter! If I find that you are deliberately fabricating or misrepresenting a piece of evidence, I'll give you the loss and the lowest speaks the tournament will allow. Yes, this applies to ALL debate events. No, I won't wait for your opponent to call you out on it.

Lincoln-Douglas Note: In LD, I maintain the style preferences I list below. On substance, however, I’m far more receptive to Ks and Theory/Topicality. I’m also fine with all LD-specific strats (phil, skep, tricks, etc.).

Style: Keep roadmaps short and off-time. I can’t handle TOC-level speed, but feel free to speak much faster with me than you would with any lay judge. I'll shout "clear" if necessary. If I have to do this more than twice, you lose speaks. Using excessive speed to confuse or exclude your opponents will cost you the round. Racist, sexist, queerphobic, or other bigoted remarks will do the same. If you start shouting at your opponents, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Speaker Points: I reward you for

- signposting THOROUGHLY

- impact and warrant comparisons

- being courteous

- being strategic

- being efficient

- being witty/humorous

Cross-Examination: Cross-ex is binding. PLEASE know when to end a line of questioning. Know when to cut somebody off and how to do it politely. Don’t tag-team and don’t use cross-ex time for prep. If nobody has anything left to say, it’s over. Time to start the prep clock.

Theory/Topicality: I rarely vote on either. I default to reasonability. With theory, I usually buy Drop the Argument, Not the Debater. I believe fairness is the gateway to education. I don't like RVIs, but I detest any strategy that involves regularly running Theory/Topicality as a means of just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. These arguments exist as last-resort checks on in-round abuse. Please keep it that way. Also condo is good; winning Condo Bad in front of me is very difficult.

Kritiks: Unlikely to vote for most, as it's hard to woo me away from a policymaking framework. I will not usually vote for kritiks with "reject the aff" as the only alt; rhetoric/discourse Ks are an exception. I prefer specific kritiks with tight links to the aff and CPs as alts. Performance/Kritikal Affs hurt debate in my opinion, and I'm very sympathetic to arguments against them. If you’re blatantly using Ks to exclude debaters with a more traditional style, you’re going to lose.

Counterplans: Go for it. I love almost all types of counterplans. Consult/study CPs are a notable exception; throw theory at them all day. Aside from that, I am far more receptive to a wider array of CPs than most judges you’ll find. Multi-actor fiat, non-institutional fiat, PICs, delay CPs, and agent/actor CPs are all fine by me. I assume conditionality and reserve the right to "judge kick" unless someone tells me otherwise. If you sever out of the 1AC, you’re going to lose.

Politics Disads: Not a big fan. I think fiat precludes any process-oriented disads (eg political capital), but results-oriented disads are fair game, though I find most high school debaters don’t construct or defend them well.

Impact Calc: Do it early and often. I default to util unless you tell me otherwise. Please weigh on the internal link level too, especially if you're going for the same impacts as your opponents. If neither side does proper impact calc, I’m left to do it for you. So for your sake and mine, please be thorough with warrants and impact calc at every point in the debate.

Other

- Please make copies of your plan text, CP text, T interp, and/or Alt available to your opponents and to me. Saves us all a ton of grief.

- I will not extend your arguments for you, but all you need to do to extend them in my mind is say "extend *insert tagline here*"

- I keep a poker face on and usually look down at my flow the whole time, so don’t stress.

- I’ll disclose at every tournament where it’s allowed. If it’s not allowed, I’ll still give oral critiques after the round, if time permits. Whether I’m giving an RFD or not, don’t be afraid to challenge me on anything I say. We can’t learn if we can’t have a discussion.

Debate experience: debated at the University of North Texas 2015-2017

My general philosophy and approach to debate is that education is A-priori. If your arguments are educational I'll buy them. Ask any clarifying questions before the round.

Rating scale - 1 being the lowest possible score with 10 representing the highest

(8 out of 10) Speed - Just be clear on the tags, don't clip cards

(6 out of 10) Topicality - I generally don't vote for T arguments unless it is under covered, dropped, but I will entertain it.

(10 out of 10) Disads and CPs - I will vote for any DA or CP. Multiple conditional counterplans are ok but don't go overboard and read more than 2 or 3.

(10 out of 10) Theory and F/W - I enjoy these arguments and will vote for just about any theory and framework argument.

(9 out of 10) Kritiks - Ill vote for any K, spend enough time covering the alternative.

(10 out of 10) Performance debate - I spent most of my career doing performance and K aff's, these are my favorite debate rounds to judge.

Hi! I am a first-year parent judge for LD. I judged PF last year. I have no prior debating experience, so I hope that you have done plenty of research on your topic and that you will use credible evidence and sound logic to support your arguments!

My expectations for debaters:

--- Speak clearly and calmly in a medium pace when delivering your arguments.

--- Be enthusiastic and confident, but also act natural.

--- Follow the speech and prep time limits strictly and exchange evidence in a timely way.

--- State a clear set of contentions and subpoints in your case.

--- Signpost in your speeches.

--- Try not to interrupt your opponents or talk over each other during cross-examination.

--- Show good sportsmanship and make debate fun and enjoyable!

Thank you!

I am an experienced coach and judge in all events, debate and speech, on our local and state circuits as well as on the national circuit. I have traveled nationally and coached at summer camps in the past in both Congress and PF. I am a full flow judge in all debate events, and yes Congress is a debate event! I will judge based off the flow, but, imo, for PF/LD/CX, quantity is not king. The best debaters demonstrate strong analytical skills and know how to collapse, weigh, and justify effectively in favor of their side of the flow.

I'll deal with Congressional Debate first because it's a little shorter. I've extensively coached on local, state, and national levels and have had finalists and top 6 placers at all levels, including co-coaching a national champion. I tend to prefer circuit style Congressional Debate. I want to see good debate and will reward that much more heavily than any deductions for a few speaking blips. Good word choice and smooth speaking are important, just relatively slightly less important than really debating. If you have to choose a slight tradeoff between delivery and debating, my preference is to prioritize debate. I prefer a rapid delivery pace, but not definitely not policy speed. I do have a sense of humor and definitely enjoy tastefully humorous styles, as long as they maintain the decorum and respect of the chamber and subjects of the debate. I understand and appreciate various types of speeches within a round, including the fact that you may want to give an authorship/sponsorship for various reasons. However, my expectation is that if you hope for a higher rank from me you will demonstrate how well you are able to speak late in the round (i.e. refutations and crystallizations). I likely can't rank you if you give the first or second speech on every bill repeatedly, no matter how beautifully you may speak. I am a fan of POs. Many of my best Congressional debaters have been excellent POs. I say this with the understanding that anyone who runs to PO can preside very EFFECTIVELY and EFFICIENTLY. If you are presiding, dispense with anything that wastes speaking time and get right down to it, recognizing speakers and questioners as quickly as possible without mistakes or extra language. This may sound strange, but the less I hear or see you as PO, while the chamber is running quickly through speeches, the higher I will want to rank you. Finally, please don't rehash or waste the chamber's time with unnecessary parli games. If the debate is getting repetitive, please PQ the bill and move on, I will not think you're rude for calling the question, even if speakers are on the floor when the debate quality is poor.

OK - ON TO PF/LD - I am very flexible when it comes to rate of speaking. You can speak as fast as your mouth can move while maintaining solid enunciation and intelligible speech. I can follow and flow national circuit style policy when I am coaching and judging policy, but PF and LD are not policy. Also, imo, many debaters believe they can speak much faster than they actually can/should/need to. Think carefully about the tradeoff between saying more words and choosing persuasive and effective words when you are considering your rate choices in the round. Often, the strongest debaters/teams are able to edge off extreme speed because of their analytical skills.

I prefer to see debates where there is some kind of clear framework for decision making presented at some point (hopefully the beginning/early on), and where weighing on that framework occurs effectively WITH reasoning behind why the mechanism and the flow on your side is appropriate/superior.

In my mind, ultimately, the quality of evidence is more important than the quantity and logic is more important than raw facts/evidence. PLEASE, PLEASE, do not simply keep repeating "my __ card" or rely on "my card says so" in round. You MUST be able to explain the logic of your evidence and understand how your source has arrived at whatever conclusion you are presenting as your cut card. Without the logic, cards have pretty much zero value in round (unless your opponent has the same problem in their debating and then I guess I get to decide which cards I like better?). Also, while I value quality of evidence over sheer quantity, my expectation at circuit tournament debates is that every team who seeks to win rounds will also have a high quantity of evidence and demonstrate the logical basis and connection to that quantity of evidence.

Please make sure to present your version of how the debate is going by the end of the round. I do want to hear, iyo, what the key voters are, why they are the keys, and why you have presented superior arguments/evidence/analysis/etc. to advance your offensive attacks over theirs.

For crossfires, I really detest debaters/teams that (1) seek to speak every moment and try to prevent others from speaking (if you ask a question you MUST give them a chance to answer without cutting them off every two seconds) (2) provide the longest, most tangential, or most evasive answers possible to "kill time" (please get to the point) (3) can't stand up to reasonable questioning and crossfire strategies that seek to point out inconsistencies or lack of information. Please allow for time sharing within the crossfire period, maintain dignity, and, if you ask a question, you must let your opponent answer the question without immediately cutting them off (unless they're being obtuse or obstructive).

I absolutely detest debaters who do the thing where they shake or nod heads, or make gestures or movements or eye rolling, etc. while the opponent or partner is speaking to try to reinforce or negate what is being said at that moment. It's really distracting and annoying. You're not helping yourself by drawing attention to yourself in this negative way.

I am not opposed to answering any other questions prior to the round, as it is likely I've forgotten to address some issue you may have in mind.

Yes, I may call for your evidence at the end of a round if it is hotly contested, vital to the round, or suspect in some way.

I competed in Lincoln Douglas debate, and have coached/judged PF & LD coach for 2 years.

I keep a thorough flow: cards, whether a piece of evidence is a study or rhetorical, etc. I won't extend arguments / impact drops unless you point them out, or if there's no objective way to decide the round without my doing so. Please give last name and year.

Key voting issues aren't 100% necessary, but I prefer if you give them just as a method of directly communicating the issues that really mattered; that said, I won't ignore other argument extensions that aren't mentioned in those voting issues if you brought them up in the line-by-line. If you do provide KVIs, try to avoid simply mashing every single point in the round into them.

Framework debate will play a large role in deciding the round. Tell me which framework I'm looking at (and it's perfectly fine to just concede to your opponent's standard), and why your position best achieves it. You can win almost all of the points in the round, but if they don't link to the standard, then they don't matter.

Your framework attacks should be substantiated issues with their framing / why their standard lacks something that makes yours preferable, not just quick statements you throw at every criterion that you don't recognize.

I make an effort to avoid judge intervention, unless the framework debate is a wash or nothing links to it. The debaters have to show me what standard I should decide the round upon, so if they fail to, all I can really do is piece something together on my own intuition.

Concept Explanation

CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY: CREI is an acronym that stands for claim, reasoning, evidence, and impact. The claim should tell the judge what you are arguing. The reasoning should show why your claim is true in your own words. The evidence should show why your claim is true using the words of another. The impact should tell the judge why your argument matters.

RIOT METHOD: RIOT is an acronym that stands for reduce, indict, outweigh, and turn. Reducing your opponent’s arguments means to put the arguments into perspective. Putting your opponent’s arguments into perspective includes breaking the argument down into its core components to show the judge the ridiculousness of the argument, or you can take the weight of their argument and compare it to the other numbers that make the weight of their argument seem small. Indicting your opponent’s arguments is the most common form of refutation. You can indict your opponent based on flawed logic and bad evidence. Outweigh is when you look at the impacts of your arguments and your opponent’s and tell the judge why your impacts have a greater weight using IMPACT CALCULUS. Turning is taking your opponent’s argument and using it to benefit your side. If your opponent presents an argument and you notice it helps your side the same or more than your opponent’s point that out and explain why to the judge.

THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY: Three-point refutation breaks down the refutation process in an easy-to-manage way. The first step is to say, “my opponent said _______.” Then you follow up by saying “my opponent is wrong because _______.” Then you end by saying “this error is significant because _________.”

VOTER ISSUES: Voter issues give the judge criteria to vote on other than his own. Providing these voter issues will allow you to demonstrate to the judge why you have won the round. Common votes include better evidence, rhetoric, and greater impact weight.

WORLD COMPARISON: World comparisons are a persuasive way to demonstrate to the judge what is happening in the aff/neg (pro/con) worlds. World comparison tells the judge what the world would like if he voted for one side or the other and illustrates why one world is more/less desirable than the other.

IMPACT CALCULUS: Impact calculus is an easy way to illustrate to the judge why your arguments have more weight than your opponent’s. Impacts can have a greater weight depending on timeframe, scope, magnitude, and probability. Timeframe compares how soon the consequences of the impact will happen. Scope observes how many people the impact will affect. Magnitude explains how bad/good the consequences of the impact are (think getting sick vs. dying). Probability measures how likely the impact is to happen.

CLASH: Clash illustrates to the judge where each side differs from the other. If both sides have different arguments, but two deal with healthcare in some fashion, one of the clashes for that debate would be “healthcare.”

Lincoln Douglas

Judging Criterion:

I primarily judge on how the debaters engage with the values presented because LD boils down to the values. Focusing on the values requires great LD debaters to rely on mostly rhetoric, philosophy, theory, and history to support their arguments. Using studies and other academic journal works would prove insufficient in LD when they stand alone because the findings only serve to illustrate debaters’ reasoning. Because debaters’ main reliance comes from their own reasoning, they should maintain a conversational pace when speaking.

The next quality I look for in both debaters is accomplishing the goal of each speech for the debate. For constructive speeches, the debaters should focus on communicating their main arguments to the judge, except for negative using some time to refute the affirmative’s contentions of course. To communicate their constructive arguments clearly, debaters should use the CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY or a similar strategy (explanation above).

During cross-examination, debaters asking questions should make sure to only ask questions that let them gain information for their refutation, however, please do not only ask yes/no questions, give your opponent the chance to slip up when they are over explainingan answer to one of your questions. The questions should be concise so the opponent cannot claim to “not understand” your question and waste your CX time, and the questioner should not let opponents waste their CX time by giving long answers. Therefore, questioners should let their opponent answer their question plus one sentence and then politely cut them off. The questions a debater asks should indict one of three elements in an opponent’s case: reasoning, evidence quality, and impact weight. Debaters answering questions should keep their answers concise and answer only what their opponents asked them, so they do not accidentally give their opponent more ammo for when they start their refutation speech. However, when answering questions, you should not only answer with a “yes” or “no.” You need to explain why the answer is “yes” or “no,” especially when a “yes” or “no” answer damages your argument in the eyes of the public.

During refutation speeches, debaters need to focus on both attacking their opponent’s arguments and bolstering their own. For attacking, debaters should use the RIOT METHOD (explanation above). Along with this method, debaters can use the THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY (explanation above). For bolstering arguments, debaters should not just repeat their argument in different words; instead, debaters should try to focus on what their opponents said and counter the reasoning or evidence their opponents used during refutations.

Finally, debaters should end the round with a strong closing speech. Strong closing speeches NEVER summarize what each debater said during the round. Instead, strong closing speeches tell the judge why you won the round. The best methods to use to tell the judge how you won include VOTER ISSUES, WORLD COMPARISON, and IMPACT CALCULUS (explanations above). Debaters should also make sure to relate their concluding arguments back to their value and why their value should be preferred during the round.

During all these speeches, debaters should relate all that they say in support of their side back to their value. Remember this is a debate about VALUES. Therefore, the debater who convinces the judge to prefer their value wins the round. Without convincing the judge to prefer your value, you will miss the whole purpose of this format and probably lose. These are the strategies that will make you a great LD debater.

Breakdown:

· Content: 70%

o Values – 30%

o Logical Reasoning – 10%

o Impacts – 20%

o Supporting Materials – 10%

· Speaking: 30%

o Conversational Pace – 15%

o Non-fluencies – 10%

o Tone and Nonverbals – 5%

Public Forum

Judging Criterion:

The primary quality I look for in a public forum is great teamwork and support. One of the primary aspects of PF is learning how to deliver a cohesive argument with another person. If PF debaters don’t acquire this skill, the whole educational experience in PF becomes lost. The secondary qualities I look for in a great PF team are accomplishing the goal of each section of the debate and using proper argumentation strategies.

The easiest way to show great teamwork in PF debate is to watch how members of the same party support each other in the British parliament. When party members representing the same party give a great speech in parliament, their fellow party members will knock or smack the table to applaud their efforts. Using this same model, I encourage all PF debaters to knock or smack the table loud enough for me to hear to demonstrate public support for their partner. Some judges may not like the noise though, so for other judges, I suggest nodding your head instead.

The more difficult way to illustrate teamwork in PF debate is to make sure you and your partner are on the same page when speaking. I cannot tell you how many times PF partners have contradicted each other in later speeches all because they were not on the same page. Therefore, PF debaters need to make sure all the arguments they make are cohesive. The best way to maintain cohesive arguments is to take notes on what your partner said during their speech(es). If you tune out your partner’s speeches, contradictions become more likely because you cannot remember what your partner said.

Now, let’s move on to discussing how to accomplish the goal of each speech. Constructive speeches carry a lot of weight because the constructive speech introduces your side’s arguments. During this time, the first speakers should solely focus on introducing their main arguments and not refuting or producing counterarguments against their opponents.

I know crossfire comes next, but I’ll get into it later because it deserves its own section at the end. For now, let’s move on to the rebuttal speeches. The rebuttal speech is the time when one of my pet peeves for PF gets triggered. Sometimes the second speaker for either side will start introducing completely new arguments. You should NOT introduce new arguments in the rebuttal speech. What you should do for the rebuttal speech is refute the opposing side's arguments, and the team B second speakers should defend their side. This is one of the speeches other than the final focus where you can put into practice your table knocking and smacking skills.

The summary speech is the trickiest speech to understand for a PF novice. Though this speech is titled “summary speech,” the speech itself should not just summarize everything that both sides have said during the debate. Instead, the summary speech should boil down the debate to the main CLASHES (explanation above). Identifying the clashes will help your partner with the final focus speech as well because identifying the clashes sets up and outline for what the final speech from your team will cover.

Between the summary speech and final focus speech, a PF team can show off just how well they work together. The final focus is not meant to rehash any old arguments or continue your side’s refutations. The final focus speech needs to tell the judge why your team won the round based on the identified clashes. The best way to demonstrate how your team won is by identifying how your team’s side either solves or has a greater weight on each of the clashes using IMPACT CALCULUS.

The last section of the PF format I will explain is the crossfire. Teams should share the crossfire time as equally as they can, so each person has the chance to ask and answer questions. If the teams do not share the crossfire time equally, it will appear as if one team is badgering the other or one team will appear less competent. For the first crossfire, the questions should focus on gathering answers your partner can use during the rebuttal speech. These questions should indict one of three elements of your opponents’ arguments: logical reasoning, evidence quality, and impact weight. The second crossfire should focus on figuring out where both sides differ so the debater giving the summary speech has an easier time identifying the clashes. The grand crossfire needs to focus on asking questions that get your opponents to concede to your identified clashes. Questions would include challenging the other team’s chosen clashes by making them admit that their clashes do not relate to the topic or are too narrow in scope for the topic.

Now, I’ll briefly explain my preferred method of argumentation. Every argument a debater makes should follow the CREI ORGANIZATION STRATEGY (explanation above) or a similar strategy. For this format, your support should come from reasoning, studies, theory, and history. Using philosophy is not worth it in this format, because there is not enough time to cover the depth of the principles. As for speaking rate, debaters should use conversational or slightly faster to ensure the judge understands their arguments. For refutation, debaters should use the RIOT METHOD (explanation above) and the THREE-POINT REFUTATION STRATEGY. These are the methods you can use to become a great PF team.

Breakdown:

· Content: 70%

o Impacts – 30%

o Logical Reasoning – 10%

o Clashes – 20%

o Supporting Materials – 10%

· Speaking: 30%

o Conversational Pace – 15%

o Non-fluencies – 10%

o Tone and Nonverbals – 5%

I have over twenty years experience working for the NC Department of Public Safety. I teach a Law and Justice elective at Cuthbertson HS. I enjoyed working in the criminal court system and appreciate those of you that have the skills to make good oral arguments. I place a value on respecting other opinions and proper decorum. It is much harder to make a good point about an unpopular opinion, therefore I take notice the level of difficulty. Lastly, I feel it is very important to be able to adapt to the current debate.

World Schools Debate

Welcome to Nats! Here’s a comprehensive outline of my judging paradigm to help you understand how I will evaluate the debate.

1. Content (40%)

WHAT you say in the debate.

• Substantive Arguments and Rebuttals: Your arguments should be well-developed, logically sound, and substantiated with relevant examples. Avoid mere assertions; explain why your outcomes are likely.

• Rigorous Logic: Ensure clear links between your premises and conclusions. A strong analytical approach is key.

• Relevance and Importance: Focus on making your arguments relevant to the debate and highlight their importance in the real world.

• Tracking Evolution: Keep track of how arguments develop throughout the debate, responding to rebuttals and adding new layers of analysis.

• Quality of Examples: Use global examples effectively. Don't just state an example; explain why your examples are important.

• Good Faith Rebuttal: Address your opponent's arguments thoroughly and fairly.

2. Style (40%)

HOW you say something in the debate.

• Decorum: This is the most important element of Style. Always remain respectful to your opponents. Follow WSD norms.

• Appropriate Word Choice: Select words that are suitable for the context and audience.

• Eye Contact and Body Language: Maintain good eye contact and use appropriate gestures to enhance your delivery.

• Voice Projection and Control: Speak clearly and at an audible volume. Control your pace to ensure comprehension.

• Variation in Delivery: Use changes in tone, pace, and emphasis to keep your speech engaging.

• Signposting: Make it clear what you are addressing. The easier it is for me to flow, the better.

• Humor: Use humor effectively but respectfully. Never at the expense of your opponents.

3. Strategy (20%)

WHY you say something in the debate.

• Motion Interpretation: Stick to a natural and reasonable interpretation of the motion. Avoid abusive definitions and focus on what an average intelligent individual would understand the motion to mean.

• Time Allocation and Prioritization: Manage your time wisely, prioritizing key arguments and structuring your speech coherently.

• Issue Identification: Correctly identify and address the central issues of the debate.

• Consistency: Ensure consistency within your speech and across your team’s presentations.

• POIs: Take at least two or three POIs and respond strategically. Avoid taking more than five. When offering POIs, keep them brief (under 15 seconds) and spaced out (at least 20 seconds apart).

• Weighing Arguments: Compare and weigh arguments effectively, showing why your side’s points are stronger.

• Teamwork: Your team’s arguments should be cohesive and mutually reinforcing. Each speech should contribute to a unified strategic whole.

Additional Notes:

• Realistic Impacts: Present clear, realistic, and practical impacts.

• Voting Issues and Worlds Comparison: Clearly outline voting issues in the Reply speech and provide a comparative analysis to guide my decision.

I look forward to a well-argued, respectful, and engaging debate. Best of luck to all teams!

Other Debate Events:
As a teacher and coach, I approach each round as an educational opportunity. Debate should be a good discussion. I find spreading counterproductive to this so I generally dislike it, though I won't automatically vote against a debater for their rate as long as I can still follow each argument. Just don't be mad if I miss an argument because your rate was too fast; my job is to listen and decide, your job is to communicate your arguments clearly and persuasively.

I don't mind jargon as long as both debaters define their terms the same way.

I don't flow cross, so make sure to bring anything substantive from cross into your next speech if you want it on the flow.

I am an experienced LD,PF and Policy Judge, I can handle above appropriate speed for each category and enjoy respectful clash.

Policy, K, Counter Plans etc encouraged. Spreading with contention signposts.

LD/PF, I am more of a traditionalist. No spreading, no K's, Counter Plans etc. I need to be able to understand you. If you spread an eleven contention case of over 14,000 words you will lose. Convince me of you position.

I am a parent judge, so please do not spread under any circumstance, and speak clearly. 

Make sure you signpost and give me an off the time roadmap. 

Thanks!

Topshelf -

Impact weighing is near the top of my priorities when making a decision it influences how i frame the rest of the debate and the offense/defense of the debate.

Kritiks - Fine by me but i prefer they have solid links to the opposing side and that they are based in the topic literature.

Theory. Fine as long as they have clear standards and a reject the team arg, i have a high threshold for reject the team args.

The looking at cards off of prep time is somewhat okay but don't use it super often it makes the round unnecessarily long

I think 2nd rebuttal should cover opponents case and offense but this isn't something i will vote on its just something to keep in mind.

Email for email chains - Joshuadalemitchell@gmail.com

Century High school Asst. Coach

college student/Debater

Major: Political Science, Philosophy, Economics

4 year high school debater.

2x Nats Attendee in Policy

4 time State Qualifier.

Debate: Policy, LD, BQ.

Speech: Panel, Impromptu, Informative.

creativity in debate is sought.

terminate impacts.

tech > truth as long as you support with reasoning, do the leg work. (default to truth)

speed is fine.

k's are fine.

pic's are fine.

Aff k's are fine.

Remember Debate is a game you play with your friends, Have Fun!

I am a parent judge. If I don't understand your argument, I will not vote on it. You can spread during the 1AC and 1NC (as long as you send the full doc) but please slow down during the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR. Please be very clear and considerably slow because I have hearing issues.

Please use SpeechDrop for sharing cases.

TLDR

1 - Advs/DAs/CPs

Please be very clear and explicit about your link chain - do impact calculus and weighing against your opponent's arguments.

3 - Theory/Topicality

I will only vote on theory if there is actual abuse within the round. I will also vote on topicality if the negative proves why the aff is not topical and why that is a bad thing for debate.

3 - Kritiks

I understand generic kritiks such as capitalism and settler colonialism. Please do not read confusing kritiks that I will not understand. I will try to evaluate them to the best of my ability but there is a very unlikely chance that I will vote on them unless they are explained extremely well.

4 - Philosophy

Please do not read dense philosophy. If you do read philosophy, please explain it very well or there is a high chance that I will not understand it and I will not vote for it.

Strike - Tricks

I am former high school LD debater but have not judged debate in over 25 years, so consider me a lay judge.

Although I can follow spreading, I prefer traditional debate without spreading

I prefer truth over tech

I expect you to keep your own time.

Lincoln Douglas Debate -

I generally prefer a more conversational style. If I miss something because you're talking fast, that's on you.

I evaluate the importance of your value and value criterion depending on how its used in the round. Several times, I've found that the winner of the framework debate isn't necessarily the winner of the round.

I strongly prefer when students give explicit voting issues at the end of the round. Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round.

I don't love jargon but cross-apply, extend, turn, etc are fine

I generally decide the winner based on who won the key argument of the round

Evidence is great. I strongly prefer it, but if you have a strong logical argument a lack of evidence won't hurt you.

I'm a flow judge, and I prefer traditional debate and am not a fan of K or theory.

Public Forum -

I am a traditional flow judge and former extemper and public forum debater who prefers clear analysis, well-cited arguments and clearly outlined voting issues in summary and final focus.

I look extremely unfavorably upon theory arguments in public forum. I believe they undermine the educational value of the activity. I still vote off the flow, but import the worst aspects of policy debate into public forum at your own risk.

I try and balance my final decision between who had persuaded me more of their position overall and who won the key arguments of the round. I find that the winning team almost always is stronger in both regards, but if it is close I typically award the win to the team who has persuaded me more of their position overall.

Along those lines, I don't score the rounds based on a strict win-loss basis for each contention. For example, if the affirmative had the better argument on several contentions, but negative had the stronger argument on the main contention at issue in the round, I typically would award the win to negation.

Teams that clearly outline their reasons for decision/voting issues in the third and fourth speeches tend to do better than those that do not. I like it when teams clearly tell me what issues they believe defined the round and why I should vote for them.

I will not hold the speed of your delivery against you, but spread at your own risk. I can only judge based on the arguments I hear. I prefer a more conversational style but am fine with some faster reading - but if I miss points because you read too fast, that's on you.

I am here to listen to the best arguments you've brought to defend your side. I tend not to rate highly teams that get lost in PF-jargon or who try and score technical points in lieu of making a strong argument.

If you are asked to provide a source and you are unable to provide it, I follow PHSSL rules and consider that an automatic loss. Providing analytical and empirical evidence is always necessary. Citing sources is essential for you to formulate your argument, for your opponents to accept the statistics you provide, and to give me the judge a basis to judge the data both teams are using to convince me their argument is superior. Technology or wifi issues are not an excuse - you should be prepared and have downloaded your case and cards so they're accessible offline before the tournament - as we all know, wifi can be spotty at debate tournaments.

My background: I am a public forum coach. I have judged more public forum rounds than any other event combined over the last three school years. I have an educational background in international affairs and a professional background in public policy and education. I do my best to not allow my prior knowledge to influence my decision-making and strive to decide every round by the arguments brought to bear within the four walls of competition room.

Policy -

No spreading. It's poor communication and a sign of an inability to deliver your argument competently, concisely and persuasively. Is it standard in policy? Yes. Do I care? No.

No K's or identity arguments. I love substantive debate - it's why we're here, right? To debate policy?

Limit theory only to topicality. Need to have proper warrants, links, and impacts. Proper use of impacts is essential to policy formation.

email chains are good in the absence of paper copies - jimi.morales@successacademies.org

if you only read one part of my paradigm, this should be it -i have tinnitus and in spite of this condition will not use the speech doc to flow because you can still be intelligible without me needing to actively read over evidence . good (sp)/(eed)/(reading) with vocal variation and pacing exists and is easy to follow - (poor/unpracticed) spreading will tank your speaks and likely result in the L!!! please strike me if you cannot meet this condition-the conversations are becoming more and more uncomfortable after neither debater reads the paradigm and then both expect me to given an intelligent RFD to resolve an unintelligible debate. quality over quantity typically wins my ballots. id rather you articulate multiple solid links for one argument than run 7 off case positions with vague/weak links.

i often use the speech doc as a reference point if evidence in the debate is disputed or referenced in a rebuttal speeches as something i should look at post round as a key warrant for the decision.

framework is often useful. so is the keeping up the with "the news"

that being said, my job is to be a neutral arbiter for a single debate of which the only usual rules are the speech times. just when i think i've seen it all in the activity, debate has a way of pleasantly surprising me.

i am listening to cross-x and you can/should reference it.

i like well researched positions that don't contradict themselves unless explained in advance or immediately after why those contradictions are ok. if you run ironic performance positions without explaining or looking up from your laptop, i will take your words literally. this will likely make you upset at my decision.

if your coach or another competitor wrote anything you are reading and you haven't re-written it, unless you really understand the argument, you probably don't want me judging.

ask me specific questions about subjects not listed above and i will happily answer them to the best of my ability.

I have coached, competed in, and judged various debate events for the past 5 years. I am a flow judge, and I appreciate when arguments are consistently carried throughout the round. I ask for clean, honest debate where both sides are respectful and mindful of their opponents.

I am a parent judge. This is my second year judging the debate.  Here are the items I try looking for

• Strength of arguments

• Claims, reasons, and supporting evidence

• Refutation of opponent’s arguments

• are they having fun and enjoying the competition? 

I am also learning from both teams debating  as a Judge 

Experience- 4 years high school as competitor, 2 years competing on my college team, and 5 years coaching my high school team.

What I like to see- I joined the dark side of debate as a parli. debater on my college team. Because of this I value the logistics of the debate rather than cards/evidence. Meaning, I am not putting any ink down while you are throwing out information off of all the cards you are reading. I think that you should read your card and then explain why this is relevant in your case. Any type of debate is suppose to be a persuasive speech, not a competition of evidence. As far as technical debate I will vote on those arguments alone if they are done well. I don't appreciate spreading or just dropping arguments as a strategy, I think that is a waste of time. K's are welcome, especially if they are done right. Speed is fine, but if I have to ask for your case because you read so fast nobody could understand you I will vote you down. I believe that if I have to do the work and read over your entire case in order to understand it that you are not debating. Don't make me do the work for you! I will not flow during any cross x. I believe that the time is for opponents to clarify and get information. If you want to bring up what is said during your speech I am cool with that. Lastly, during cross x I would appreciate letting opponents finish their thoughts and being respectful, I don't think being rude during cross x should be used as a strategy.

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Hello there,

As a parent judge with over one year of judging experience, I would like to ask those who are spreading to present their arguments clearly. I pay close attention to the flow of the argument and how well it is presented and clearly communicated. Speak in simple English. Please avoid jargon. If any acronyms are used, it is the debater's responsibility to expand the acronyms.

If one debater has strongly debated their argument, I will look for their opponent's ability to strongly rebut the argument.

I ask debaters not to use K's, theory, or any form of progressive debate.

It is essential to respect your opponent and, most importantly, enjoy the debate. Thank you for your cooperation.

Thank you!

Neither speed nor file justifies lack of clarity. Slow for tags and, especially, authors if you're going fast.

I can understand and vote for anything with warrants & clear explanation

Do not clash and refute from after constructives until the absolute end of the debate. I need voters and/or weighing to vote for you

LD/CX:

Varying degrees of knowledge on diff philosophy/high theory, up to you to risk finding out whether our knowledge intersects,

but anything w/ warrant/explanation

PF:
Line-by-line, weigh

Ask in round for more specifics

I am an ex-traditional policy debate coach (Stock issues judge) who has been coaching LD since 1990. I usually administrate tournaments rather than judge except when I have been at Catholic Nat's and NSDA Nat's.

Speed: Adapt to the judge who prefers a few well-developed arguments to spreading. I will flow as fast as I can, but it is up to you to communicate to me the compelling/persuasive reasons why you should earn the ballot. Speak clearly and articulate your words and you'll do fine.

Flex Prep. No. Speak within the time constraints and use prep time to see Evidence.

Evidence Challenge: If you doubt the veracity of evidence, then challenge it at the next available opportunity. Remember evidence challenges are all or none. If the evidence has been proven to be altered or conjured, then your opponent loses. If the evidence is verifiable and has NOT been materially altered, then you lose for the specious challenge.

Arguments: A few well-reasoned claims, warrants, and impacts are very persuasive as opposed to a laundry list of underdeveloped assertions/arguments.

Theory Arguments: Not a big fan of sitting in judgment of the topic and/or its framers with critiques. But I do weigh the issue of topicality as germane if made during the constructives.

Philosophy: It's been labeled Value debate for a reason. I encourage the discussion of scholarly philosophies.

Framework: There is a Value that each side is pursuing as their goal. There is a value criterion that is used to measure the accrual of the VP. The last steps include why the Value is superior and why the VC is the best way to measure that value.

Decision-Rule. While repetition often aids learning, I prefer that you tell me what the established standard for judging the round has been and why your arguments have met/exceeded the threshold. Write the ballot for me.

PFD: I have coached and judged PFD since the event started.

I prefer a framework and a few well-developed arguments to the spread. Point keywords as you read your case. Be polite in C-X and ask closed-ended questions. Tell me why your arguments are better by weighing impacts.

Case/evidence email: k3n.nichols@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas

Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for over 6 years and work in the tech industry.

Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)

Criteria: I consider myself to be a "traditional" LD judge. I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.

Note: I don't care for "progressive" arguments... most of the time they're just a cheap ploy to ambush unsuspecting opponents instead of expanding our understanding of the problem and the philosophical underpinnings guiding our decision. (If you'd rather be doing policy, there's a whole other event for you to enter.)

Public Forum

Public Forum is based on T.V. and is intended for lay viewers. As a result, there's no paradigm, but some of the things that help are to be convincing, explain what the clash is between your opponents position and yours, and then show why your position is the logical conclusion to choose.

For extemp, I am looking for familiarity with the topic, confidence while speaking. I appreciate when students tie in what they’re talking about to big picture issues etc.

Background

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

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

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

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

A couple of notes

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

Evidence

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

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

Notes on Education

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

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

Evidence often is not enough

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

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

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

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

Counterplans and debate tech

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

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

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

How we treat each other

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

Current coach, Former LD competitior and traditional Flow Judge.

I can deal with a bit of speed but Please do not spread and speak clearly.

I enjoy getting an idea of the structure of your argument so I appreciate off-time roadmaps and sign posting.

Be respectful of your opponent, especially during cross.

This is my second season doing LD judging, sorry participants, and I am trying to become a better judge with every tournament. The following are my recommendations for debaters that I am judging

1. If you are going to spread, send me your case to carlos@aerocadmfg.com, and go at 70 mph and not 100. In my opinion if the audience can't follow your case, that is a problem.
2. If you are going to do progressive, make sure that you explain very clearly how your case relates to the topic; and you still need to address your opponents case.
3. If you drop arguments to focus on critical points, communicate that and I will judge if you did address the key items.
4. Flow and structure are just as important as your main value.

Please do not say anything inappropriate, racist, homophobic, or anything offensive to your opponent. Please be kind & respectful to your opponent, and do not interrupt your opponent during cross-examination. No offensive terms or personal attacks

I consider evidence, and argument interaction very important. Evidence must be quantitive with clear and credible references. Supporting evidence is critical. I also pay attention whether opponents questions and contentions are addressed or not.

Please speak clearly. Also please define any acronyms you will be using throughout at the beginning. Make sure your key points and values are clear.

Thank you for taking the time to participate in speech and debate. This summary should be succinct and to the point in order provide a guide or framework on how I typically judge participants.

  My experience: I’ve participated in congress and policy debate. My judging history has been congress, Lincoln-Douglas, PF, and Policy.   Speaking: Please ensure you speak clearly even if you are spreading or speed reading. If it’s not spoken, I will not be able to understand or weigh the item into the decision making process.   Decision process: It is the burden of the affirmative to carry without a reasonable doubt as to why your the winner. However, this does not mean that the negative can simply use one simple or anecdotal hole to throw out the entire case. I like to weigh the options presuming the burdens have been met.   Etiquette: Please ensure you are professional and respectful of your opponents and those in attendance. Rudeness and arrogance is not appreciated, and will be reflected particularly in the speaker points.   Thank you and best of luck!

Ryan Parimi - Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Email: ryan.parimi@gmail.com

About me:

• UGA law student
• I coach/teach college, high school, and middle school debate (LD, PF, WS, Parli)
• I did congressional debate and moot court in college
• I coach college moot court and high school and middle school mock trial
• I started my university's debate program
• I've taught summer debate camps at Yale, Drew, U. of Washington, and even one way out in Jakarta, Indonesia

General Debate Stuff:

• A coach once called me a debate "hipster"; though I enjoy a lot of the more progressive arguments, my philosophy of debate still centers on clear argumentation and conversational, persuasive speech. After all, you’re trying to win me—not just win arguments in a vacuum. I want to be convinced. Talk to me, don't just talk at me.
• I like aspects of both traditional and circuit debate. I wish the traditional community wouldn't let its fear of everything turning into policy keep it from adopting some helpful circuit norms, and I wish the circuit community would stop trying to convince itself that a total departure from traditional debate turns the activity into anything but an esoteric game with no real-life application.
• Examples of cases that would be great for my taste: a Cap K that links reasonably to the resolution, argued in a more traditional style; a traditional case that demonstrates a deep understanding of the philosophy behind its framework; a tech case that restores my faith in humanity by making semi-reasonable arguments and doesn't force me to flow 10 subpoints of copy-paste garbage from the debate wiki.
• Tech over truth (within reason). You should probably run your tech case for me if you're torn between tech and lay.
• I actually know all of the NSDA's evidence rules.

Speed:

• Prioritize clarity. Spreading is lame, but I can flow it and won't vote you down solely because you chose to spread. If you spread, please be good at it: your articulation better not go down the drain, you better stay organized, etc. Bad spreading will tank your speaker points. Email me your case or give me a printed copy before the round if you plan on spreading.

Framework:

• I’m fine with traditional and more modern frameworks. Just make whatever you’re using clear. Be aware that I have a very good understanding of the philosophy behind most frameworks...don't try to BS me on Kant or Rawls or something. I will know. That being said, I believe it's on the debaters to call each other out on stuff like that. I'm going to flow it unless it's crazy.

• Please don't throw the framework debate away. It's what makes LD unique.

Kritiks and Theory:

• I come from a pretty traditional circuit, but a well-developed K could certainly convince me. Similar to the philosophy behind traditional frameworks, I'm familiar with the critical theories behind most Ks.

• Theory arguments are fine when there's actual abuse--just explain clearly. Save RVIs for egregious things.
• I hate disclo and will not vote on it with one exception. Look: disclo sucks, and I'm not even sure why we still let people get away with trying to win on disclo in 2024. Part of debate is learning how to analyze and respond to arguments on the fly. Yes, it's hard. No, I'm not going to give you a win for whining about it being hard. Here's the one exception: if you didn't share your case and you're spreading so fast that flowing is nearly impossible, I will give you the L if your opponent runs disclo.

Other random stuff:

• I like reading Alexander Pope, collecting shoes, listening to Chinese rap, and exploring Marxist criticism.

• I will follow the NSDA rules for LD whenever questions that the rules address come up. I follow tradition for pretty much anything else. If you have questions about specific preferences, just ask before the round.

I am the Director of Forensics and head LD coach at Cary Academy. I would describe myself as a neo-traditionalist. I follow a traditional approach to LD with some notable exceptions. I am a typical traditionalist in that I prefer a debate centered on a common sense, reasonable, good faith interpretation of the resolution; and I believe speakers should emphasize effective communication and practice the habits of fine public speaking during the debate. I differ from many traditionalists in that I am not a fan of the value premise and criterion, and that I do not believe that LD arguments have to be based on broad philosophical concepts, but rather should be as specific to the particular resolution as possible. If you want to win my ballot you should focus on developing a clear position and showing how it is superior to the position put forth by your opponent. You should not attempt to make more arguments than your opponent can respond to so that you can extend them in rebuttal. In my opinion most rounds are not resolved by appeals to authority. The original analysis and synthesis of the debater is vastly more important to me than cards. For further insight on my views please consult these following articles I have written for the Rostrum:

http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/ld%20Pellicciotta0202.pdf,

https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/Luong%20RJ%20PresumptionNov'00.pdf

[last updated 9-3-2024]

Hi my name is Tanya, I'm a debate grad assistant at WKU. I did 2 years of NPDA parli then 2 years of NFA-LD when I was a competitor.

Add me to the email chain: tanyaprabhakar1@gmail.com (although I would prefer you use speechdrop to an email chain). Its really easy, you just make a room on speechdrop.net and you can still save your opponents' ev + it's faster.

!!! IF YOU'RE IN PF SKIP DOWN TO THE PF SECTION AT THE BOTTOM PLEASE

How do you feel about speed?

I'll vote on speed bad in novice and JV. If your opponent slows you on something not in the doc you should probably slow.

Should I disclose?

I am pro aff (wiki) disclosure. I am willing to vote on aff disclosure theory if it is not responded to properly. I also expect people to share docs in round, even if you aren't spreading, either in an email chain or speech drop.

Substance

I like case/DA/CP debate, and I would consider myself more qualified to evaluate this than anything else.

K

I like and will vote on Ks, but I won't pretend to understand an alt I don't get.

To vote aff I need you to win: offense against the alt OR a perm

To vote neg I need: the aff to not win that stuff

Also, make sure that there are clear, ideally carded, links to the aff. I probably won't vote on just a no link, but it's a pretty good justification for the perm, which I will vote on. Links of omission are generally a no go for me, unless you have a well warranted (ideally carded) explanation for why not considering X in policy making is uniquely bad.

Can I read non T affs?

Yeah that's fine, as long as it has a topic specific link. As a default T FW comes before the aff, especially in parli.

T

I like T. You can read T and not go for it. You can read multiple Ts. I don't need proven abuse, but there does need to be some clear impact on the round/debate in general (ie link to fairness and education). Default to competing interps.

Theory/Procedurals -

I don't mind theory debate, and I don't need proven abuse. Again, default competing interps. You also have to win that kicking the arg doesn't resolve the offense. I think theory is frivolous based on the interp, not the amount of theory read (for example, time cube theory is frivolous even if its the only theory you read, but reading, like, disclosure and A spec and speed together isn't necessarily frivolous.

I don't vote on RVIs. Make sure your standards link back to your interpretation. Have fun and be yourself.

PF Only:

1 - Evidence sharing: If I don't have your evidence, I cannot evaluate it, and if you don't have each other's evidence I can't trust you and your opponent to evaluate it. And at that point it's going to come down to drops and analytics. The easiest way to resolve this is to send your docs to each other - it is more important to me that your opponent has your evidence than it is I have it. If I don't have your evidence my cap for your speaks is gonna be a lot lower than it would be if I did, because for all I know you made everything up.

2 - Progressive/technical debate: I understand that I would be considered a tech judge in most PF pools. However, I have few caveats around tech in PF: Firstly, the norms on the circuit mean that most debaters have no idea how to respond to theory or the K and will completely mishandle awful theory or Ks because they don't know how to respond. You can still read these args, just know I will be much more likely to intervene if I think the argument is badly executed than I would be in LD or Policy, even if it is conceded/poorly responded to by the other team, simply because I think there's no educational value to bad technical debate in a lay event, and I don't want to incentivize that.

Secondly, a lot of technical args just don't translate well to PF (imo) because of the lack of plan texts. T doesn't work, and neither does a significant amount of (the most compelling) theory. The lack of plan also means you can't have a counterplan or alt. Without alts the k loses all uniqueness and no longer functions. I'm not saying that you can't read any technical arguments but you also can't just read old LD or Policy backfiles as-is and expect me to vote on them.

Updated 9/1/24 for Scottsdale Prep

I am appreciative and grateful to support the Arizona Speech and Debate community. I have tremendous respect and admiration for the time and energy you, your teammates and coaches invest in preparation.

Congress

PO begins the session ranked first. To move above the PO participants must present all three speeches *(authorship/sponsor, mid round and round ending speeches) that are exemplary and delivered with polish and grace.

For more click here

Debate

No spreading, warranting > evidence, truth > tech, no progressive or critique.

Click here for more.

Speech/Interp

I value a logical narrative over citation and authenticity in performance over technique

For further detail click here.

emailchain: passapungchai@gmail.com

Current:PhD student @Rice

Past: Mountain House '18, UCLA '22,

Debate stock**, do flay LD. No spreading. Actually try to talk persuasively, not just at 300 wpm. I am not that fast anymore, I do not coach, and I don't even read the topics. You have been warned.

** I like fun arguments still and can get quite bored of stock. If you run zanier things, just take the time to explain better.

TL;DR:

Efficiency, strategic collapsing, weighing >>> generic card dump

I do not like seeing theory shells in PF. Please do not do it. Debate substance. Pretend that I'm a very well-read parent judge at this point

I did PF and believe debate is a game meant to be done with some flair. i’ve judged lots of ld, pf and parli (circuit, trad, whatever) at this point, can handle speed (hit me with your best shot), but I’m also older and don’t spread in my daily life. By the way, the faster you go, the more you should enunciate... People are getting worse and worse at spreading... If you can do LARP, please do LARP. If you don't LARP, procedural arguments are also good (I love T debate), theory is fine, just be clean on the flow and your extensions.. Be mindful that I am not super familiar with it. K's are okay, heed the warnings in bold below.I won't vote on any argument I don't understand; my threshold for voting on something convoluted that you spread at me is much higher. That being said, if you explain a creative, strategic argument well and carefully --> more speaks and my ballot. Entertain me, and you will be rewarded.

Condo bad

"The easiest way to win my ballot is to follow these three rules. Pick an issue and defend against responses constructively with more than just a re-assertion of your argument. Weigh the link against other links and the impact against other impacts. Use this issue to tell a clear story that leaves me confident when I vote."

I study engineering, so I like to consider myself an engineer/scientist in training. if a card is important to my decision, I call for it. If I find that you misrepresented it, put it out of context, whatever, I won't consider it and will tank your speaks. That being said, clever indicts against your opponents' evidence, or knowing their evidence better than they do will majorly help your speaks. Show that mastery of the topic in cross and in your speeches.

Tech >> truth, I can vote on anything and everything, and I don't believe in any form of judge intervention whatsoever. That doesn't mean you should run terrible -ism arguments, just that you can and I will consider it in my decision like any other position. However, my threshold for your opponent to call you out on it and drop it is much, much lower (because these arguments are always objectionable under normative ethics frameworks, and you have to do extra work to prove otherwise, I default normative ethics if there's no FW clash here).

for judging LD/Policy/Parli: **HATE FRIV THEORY and tricks, NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH KRITIKAL POSITIONS except very neolib, biopolitics, and especially, THE FEM K. If you run a K, explain it well. I've definitely gotten slower (I'm 5 years out and I no longer coach), so don't spread so quickly that you start foaming at the mouth. I can handle 300-500 wpm (this is different from online debate comfort levels, read that section). Stock issues, case, LARP, love science centered cases --> good. Don't bite each other in cross/flex.

If you run friv theory despite my warnings, and the round becomes a friv theory/trix wash of a massive shitshow on both sides, I will drop the team/debater that read the first shell. Consider yourself warned. ~~

If I stop flowing or put my pen down, you're either going too fast, or you're wasting your time by saying what you are saying, so you should switch strats immediately.

I hate frivolous theory & RVIs, so I have a much higher threshold for voting on it. I prefer case debate, but if you don't wanna do that, that's your call.

Online Stuff:

It's become clear to me that over the online format, spread is just much more unintelligible than usual. Slow down. Speed is just you compensating for inefficiency, and I'm more receptive to efficiency than anything else. If you are efficient and stay below / around 250 wpm, I will boost your speaker points by a lot. Thank you for adapting to the format.

I'm also a lot more receptive to ableism, speed K args that are triggered by shitty spread in the online format. this is an actual issue and problem that I think matters given the circumstances... Haven't heard a good shell for this, but if you run it, I will like it.

~~~

PF prefs:

I think first speaking teams are structurally disadvantaged in PF (first summary is arguably the hardest speech to give), so if there is no offense generated in the round, absolute wash, then I default to the first speaking team.

Please weigh. Probability, Scope, and Magnitude. Impact Calculus is good. Weighing needs to start in the summary speech, maybe even the second constructive. In general, good debaters tend to be very good at weighing. Comparative statements are also good: "Even if they win [arg tag], if we win [arg tag], you vote us up because [....]"

NSDA has given summary speeches another minute.. 2nd summary better have defense, both summaries better have comparative weighing. I have a MUCH LOWER tolerance for ships passing in the night now.

Give me a roadmap, and follow it. Signpost frequently. Card by card extensions are good, and please have good warranting. 2nd summary better have defense. Don't be a jerk in x-fire.

On evidence, if a particular card is very important to my decision, I will call for it. If you misrepresented it, then I won't consider the offense/defense it generated on your side. Evidence ethics are terrible in PF. If a team tells me to call for a card, I will call for it. If all your cards seem to be terrible, I'll tank your speaks.

ONLINE PF SPECIFIC PREFS:

PF usually doesn't have emailchains, but since audio can be faulty, people can cut out for a second, please send me and your opponents the case, cut cards should be attached in a separate document (assuming you paraphrased). This saves everyone time when cards are asked to be seen during prep anyway, and I think it's a net good for education + accessibility.

Kyle - He/Him/His

Updated for NSDA Nats, if I'm judging you in CO it's obviously less strict but I still have preferences :)

My email is kyle.quinlan6045@gmail.com. Please add me to an email chain. Flashing seems to be especially important with online debate. Use a descriptive subject line to help me keep track of rounds. Note I will not pull up the doc to follow in round, but want your evidence to read if needed.

I did CX and PF in high school.

PF (CX is going to be similar vibe):

I'm a flow judge. You'll probably be best adapting as if I'm flay - I strongly prefer slower, well warranted argumentation with a clear collapse. In general I prefer traditional debate, but I'll definitely listen to a progressive round. I don't have any super strong preconceptions of what your round should look like. Don't lie about evidence (paraphrasing is fine). I use an offense-defense paradigm to help me evaluate who won. Make sure you at least win some offense. Defense alone never wins rounds (unless you fully unironically have terminal defense on everything and make a case for why I vote your side on presumption). I will flow everything but cross, but I'll still pay attention and jot down notes if something important happens. Also my preference for case format is a doc with a paraphrased version that you read and then all cut cards included below it, but that's just a preference so do whatever you want.

Some extra stuff

1. Front Lining is necessary. If you're speaking second, you need to defend your own case in rebuttal. If you leave your side of the flow empty going into summary, you just dropped all your opponents attacks on your case. I used to disagree with this, but second speaker is a huge advantage otherwise and I think this makes for better debates. Feel free to drop a contention so you can do more attacks, but you have to front line or you'll almost certainly lose the round.

2. Please collapse. We both know you aren't winning everything, and you don't need to win everything to win the round. Just tell me what you are winning and why that should win you the round.

3. Analytics. You don't need a card to make an argument. Strong, specific card > strong, specific analytic > weak card. Just make good arguments

4. Speed is fine, but if your opponents ask you before or during the round to slow down try to honor that. Debate should be accessible.

5. Tech > Truth. I will try my hardest not to step in and do any work for either side. The bar is much much lower for you to respond to a bad argument, but you still need to respond.

6. Theory in PF is kinda lame, but there is a place for it and I'll give you the ballot if you actually win it. Bar is lower to respond in PF w/ shorter speeches but again, you still need to respond.

7. Evidence calls shouldn't take too long (like 2 minutes tops). If you can't find the card I'm just dropping that argument. Be able to show your opponents the quote you use and a little context around it. That being said, if you're paraphrasing in case and you heavily misrepresent or outright lie about evidence, I will most likely just give you the L. Let me know at the end if you think your opponent did this and I'll read a card or two and make a decision.

If you have any more questions, just ask me before the round. If you want more feedback after a round just email me and I'll probably tell you more. Be nice and have fun :)

Random stuff I'll keep adding as I watch rounds:

1. Time yourself, I'll forget.

2. If I'm timing I'll just stop listening after ~5 seconds over time. If I forgot to start a timer just stop your opponent when they're like 10 seconds over.

3. Cross is usually zzz. I'm listening but I'm not flowing so if something important happens say it again when I am flowing :))

Parent lay judge.

Don't spread. Speak clearly. If I cant understand your argument I cant vote on it/weight it.

I need clear reasons (warrants) to vote on. Make sure that your arguments are logical and easy to follow. A dropped argument isn't going to be a reason for my decision if the the argument is not warranted properly.

Links must be reasonable/logical. From the rounds I've judged, I've found extinction impacts extremely hard to vote on.

Make sure your rebuttals are organized and logical. Off-time roadmaps help fulfil this. Make sure to signpost.

Lastly, be nice. Don't be snarky or roll your eyes at your opponent while they are speaking. Also, debate is meant to be fun and educational and if I find you are abusive in any way I will dock speaker points or possibly drop you.

I am a parent judge. I do take notes in round, but that’s not helpful if you don’t thoroughly explain arguments. Assume I know nothing about your topic.

UKSO Living Wage Update—I am not the judge for a spec aff (teachers, hospital workers, etc.) or Non-T Affs. Sorry!

Considering that, as well as the fact that this is an online tournament, please go slowly. Do not read K's or theory. Egregiously overcomplicated phil is also something I would rather not hear. Otherwise, feel free to read whatever positions you are comfortable with as long as you are confident you can convincingly explain it to someone with no prior knowledge. I will vote on technicalities (arguments that go conceded), but you need to point it out and implicate it in the round. I do not know about niche debate jargon. If you’re looking to get extremely progressive, don’t put me higher than a 4. Give me a clear ballot story. I value persuasive speaking. Keep your own time! I'm a judge, not your timekeeper.

Speaking points: I will deduct points for disorganization and being inconsiderate. Please don’t talk over each other! This is debate, so what you say is important, but HOW you say it matters, too.

Pronouns: She/her

Hi everyone (: I was a Speech and Debate competitor throughout high school. I mostly focused on LD and Extemp but have also participated in other events as well.

LD: I am more on the traditional side when it comes to LD however, I will not automatically vote you down for presenting a progressive case… Just do it well. LD is a philosophical/values debate, if you choose to go progressive that’s fine but I will not vote off of how many cards you can show me in a speech. I expect both debaters to present a well explained value/criterion, tell me why I should buy your framework over your opponents and be sure to carry out your value criterion throughout the whole case. Your contentions must show how you are proving your framework, that being said, just make sure you're wrapping up your case nicely for me and why it would be a mistake not to vote for you.

My next thing is voters. TELL ME WHY YOU WON. especially on the neg, make your last speech count. When you can tell me what to vote on and what arguments/impacts I should be taking into consideration the most, it definitely tells me as a judge that 1) you understood what happened in the debate and 2) you're taking advantage of the last minutes you have to persuade me to vote in your favor.

Lastly, facts and evidence are important, but execution of facts/evidence are of greater importance. You could be a top debater but if you’re spreading your heart out you risk the chance of me missing some rather important things you may bring up during the debate. So please, DO NOT SPREAD. Especially when online it’s important that both your judge and opponent can understand you clearly. Spreading will also cause you to run the risk of losing speaker points.

I will not tolerate any disrespect throughout the debate, you will take an L for it.

From San Jose CA. My son is active in debate and I've judged speech and debate competitions for ~6 years.

Speed- I prefer elucidation and clarity to speed.

I like fewer more well developed points versus lots of varied but weaker arguments.

I dislike rude behavior, verbal or through gestures.

I really enjoy the creativity that teams bring to their debate topics and the diligence they bring to the preparation.

I am a Parent judge. My notes focus on (1) argumentation, (2) supporting evidence. I highly value credible evidence.

Most of all, I appreciate a respectful and fun debate!

I am a lay parent judge. Please add me to email chain: Email: hitesh_rastogi@hotmail.com These are my preferences:

K Debaters: I am fine with Kritiks as long as they are topical to the resolution. Make sure to be very clear on your links and explain as to why it should be extended. If I am not clear on how you solve for your K, I will drop it.

Theory Debates: I don’t prefer theory debates. If you’re reading high theory, make sure to explain it as low theory so I can understand properly.

Speed: Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow. Make the argument, cite examples (warrants) and persuade me why your argument is superior to your opponents.

Signpost & crystallize. This is very important. I will be flowing with you, but be sure that you signpost elements that you want me to pay attention to. Please crystalize effectively. Please sum up your debate by addressing the most important arguments in a simple and clear manner.

Links & extensions: The link between each contention and its value/impact must be clear. Don't just cite cards, explain how the card is important and relevant in this round and to your value premise and towards the end towards addressing voting issues.

In general, focus more on why your arguments are more superior beyond just using the technicalities of dropped arguments, etc.

Finally, keeping up with the spirit of debate, be polite, courteous and follow the rules.

Enjoy yourself

I am an experienced parent judge. English is not my first language. Please speak slowly and clearly!I will not understand spreading and I am not used to progressive arguments.

Last updated - 9/22/23

Garland HS - '20

The University of Texas at Austin - '24

Put me on the email chain: imrereddy@gmail.com

Conflicts: Garland (TX), McNeil (TX), Westwood (TX)

Pref shortcut:

LARP - 1

T/Theory - 2

K - 2-3

Phil - 2-3

Tricks - hurts me physically (pls strike)

TLDR: Please just read the bolded stuff, speaks at bottom

Background: Hey I'm Ishan (pronounced E-shawn). My pronouns are he/him and I'll use they/them if I don't know yours. I debated for Garland High School for 4 years in LD and competed on the national circuit for almost 2. I broke at several nat circuit tournaments, got a bid round, but never bid - do with that what you will - also broke at NSDA nats and was in octos and trips of TFA State for my last 2 years. Debate focuses/expertise include: LARP, T/Theory, and generic Ks and phil (Cap, Security, word PIKS, Kant, etc.)

People I agree with/have been coached by who I may or may not have modeled this paradigm after: Khoa Pham, Alan George, Bob Overing, Devin Hernandez, Vinay Maruri, Patrick Fox

Defaults:

debate is a game

Tech>Truth with the caveat that burden of proof>burden of rejoinder - I'm not going to vote on a conceded argument if I can't explain the warrant/impact - the bare minimum is saying this argument is bad because of XYZ.

CX is binding

DTA>DTD (except for T/condo)

No RVIS

CI>R

1AR theory is cool

Theory>K

Text>Spirit

Condo good

CW>TT

Epistemic confidence>modesty

Presumption goes neg (absent an alternate 2NR advocacy)

(Tbh these don't matter as long as you make the argument for the other scenario)

Ev Ethics: (PLS READ)

- I didn't enjoy rounds that were staked on this a debater so I obviously won't as a judge. However, this doesn't mean you should not call out your opponent for a violation.

- If/when an accusation is made, I will stop the debate and determine if the accusation is true/false. Whoever is right about the accusation gets a W30, and whoever is wrong gets an L0.

- Reading an ev ethics shell is not the same as an accusation and I will evaluate it like a theory debate, so you might as well go for the accusation. That said, winning "miscutting ev good" is a hella uphill battle and probably the wrong decision.

- PLEASE have complete citations - if you don't and it is pointed out by your opponent, I will not evaluate the argument/card and your speaks will drop. Make it a voting issue! It's your responsibility as a debater to cut good ev.

- Don't intentionally clip cards - I will follow along in the doc to prevent this as much as I can. If I notice this in prelims, it's an L0, if I notice this in elims, it's an auto-L. Seriously, don't do it. >:(

- Don't miscut your ev (cutting out counter-arguments/modifiers, breaking paragraphs, etc.) - If I notice this in round, it's an auto-L.

General notes I think are important:

• BE NICE, bigotry of any kind will result in an L0 and me reporting you to tab.

- I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments (racism, sexism, homophobia, death good, etc.) - I will vote you down.

- Debate is fundamentally a game, but it is also a very competitive game that can get very messy. If at any point in the round you feel uncomfortable/unsafe, let me know verbally or by some sort of message and I will stop the round to help you in any way I can.

- If you are hitting a novice or someone who is clearly behind in the debate, don't be mean. Go for simple strats (2 or less off, no theory, 50% speed, etc.) and err on the side of good explanations. Doing so will result in me bumping your speaks.

- I'll call clear/slow as many times as a need to be able to flow. If you don't listen after 5+ times, that's your fault and your speaks will suffer.

- Please do NOT start off your speech at max speed, just work your way there.

- If the tournament is online, I understand tech issues will happen, so I'll be pretty lenient.

- Get the email chain set up ASAP. Sending docs in between speeches shouldn't take that long. Don't steal prep, I'll know and drop your speaks.

- Speech times and speaker order are non-negotiable.

- I'd really prefer you don't interrupt another person's speech, even if it's a performance. CX is obviously an exception.

- Performances that justify voting for anything outside of the debate realm (e.g. dance-off, videogames, etc.) are not persuasive to me. If you're conceding the round (exception), however, just let me know ahead of time.

- I know my paradigm is not short and you might not have time to read it, so ask questions if needed - I won't be an ass about start time unless tab forces me to - I think debaters should always read their judges' paradigms and take them to heart since it often results in better debates/speaks. That having been said, I'd rather see you debate well with a strategy you know than a strategy you're bad at just because you're trying to model what I did as a debater.

Policy/LARP:

- My favorite style of debate and the one I'm most familiar with

- Link/impact turns require winning uniqueness!

- I think doing your impact calculus/weighing in the 2NR/2AR is fine - idk how the alternatives are feasible - making your weighing comparative/contextual is a must. I think debates about impact calc are really interesting and carded meta-weighing will get you far.

- If your extensions don't have a warrant, you didn't extend it - I won't do your work for you. (Ex: The aff does X and solves Y by doing Z)

- I'm perfectly fine with reading evidence after round, especially if was a key contestation point. Also, call out your opponents on having bad evidence. Debate fundamentally requires well-researched positions.

- Having clever analytic CPs, especially when the aff is new, can be really strategic - negs should always exploit aff vagueness, especially on questions of solvency.

T/Theory:

- I really liked going for theory as a debater, but often felt discouraged by judges who hated frivolous theory. That's not me though so feel free to go for it - with the exception of egregious arguments like policing people's clothes - also keep in mind that intuitive responses to friv theory are pretty effective. Reading bad/underdeveloped shells does not equate to reading friv theory and will make me sad.

- Please slow down on theory interpretations and analytics and number/label your arguments - especially in underviews - I don't type very fast - seriously tho stop blitzing theory analytics

- I think paragraph theory is cool and prefer it most of the time. I don't think you need paradigm issues, but if you know your opponent is going to contest it, you might as well include them.

- I think going for reasonability is under-utilized and strategic, so doing it well with up your speaks. However, you need to have a counter-interp that you meet, even when you go for reasonability. I don't think a brite-line is always necessary, especially if the shell was terrible and you have sufficient defense.

- I'll resort to defaults absent any paradigm issues, but they are all soft defaults and I'd rather not, so literally just make the argument for the side you are going for.

- Winning the RVI isn't a super uphill battle with me, but I find that it often is a poor time investment.

- Having CIs with multiple planks (provided you actually construct offense with them) is cool/strategic.

- Weighing between standards, voters, and shells is just as important here as it is in LARP!

- I ran and debated Nebel T a lot as a debater, so I'm quite familiar with the nuances. If I can tell you don't know what this argument actually says e.g. you don't know what semantics being a floor/ceiling means, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm quite fond of topicality arguments and think they are a good strat, especially against new affs. That being said, if your shell is underdeveloped or you can't properly explain an offensive/defensive case list, the threshold for responses drops.

- Having carded interps and counter-interps is key.

- I don't care about your independent voters unless you can actually explain why they're a voter.

T-FW:

- T-fw/framework (whatever you wanna call it): I read this argument a lot as a debater and this was often my strat against k affs.

- Procedural fairness is definitely an impact, but I will gladly listen to others e.g. topic ed, skills, clash, research, etc. and I often find these debates to be very interesting.

- Contextualized TVAs are a must-have.

- Contextualized overviews in the 2NR are a must-have as well. If I wanted to hear your pre-written 2NR on framework, I'd go read my own.

Disclosure:

- I think disclosure is good for debate, but I'm open to whatever norm is presented in round. I think reading disclosure theory, even at locals (provided you also meet your interp) is fine. I was a small-school debater and I disclosed all my stuff with full cites and round reports. I think the first 3/last 3 is a minimum, but you do you. Open-source, full text, round reports, new affs bad, etc. are all shells I feel comfortable evaluating like any other theory debate.

- This is the only theory argument about out-of-round abuse I will vote on.

- Don't run disclosure on novices/people who literally don't know about the norms - maybe inform them before round and just have a good debate?

K:

- I have a good understanding of Marxist cap, security, afropess, and humanism. I have a very basic understanding of Deleuzian cap, Baudrillard, and Saldanha. That being said, I can't vote for you unless you properly explain your theory to me and you should always err on the side of over-explanation when it comes to the links, alternative, turns case arguments, and kritiks your judge doesn't know front and back.

- For afropess specifically (cause apparently this needs to be on my paradigm) - if you are making ontological claims about blackness as a non-black debater, I will vote you down.

- The K needs to actually disagree with some or all of the affirmative. In other words, it needs to disprove, turn, or outweigh the case. Actual impact framing>>> bad ROB claims.

- Please don't spend 6 min reading an overview - if I can tell someone else wrote it for you, I will be very sad and drop your speaks - if your overview is contextualized to the 1ARs mistakes, however, I will be very happy and bump your speaks up.

- I think CX against the aff and CX against the K are very important and I make an effort to listen. Pointing out links in the aff and using links from CX itself is cool. I also find that sketchiness in CX is acceptable to some extent (ex: it's a floating PIK), but I'd prefer you not be an ass to your opponent. If you make an effort to actually explain your theory, links to the aff, and alternative sufficiently, I will make an effort to up your speaks. Absent a sufficient explanation, the threshold for responses to K plummets.

- I think K tricks/impact calc args (alt solves case, K turns case, root cause, floating PIK, value to life, ethics/D-rule) are under-utilized.

- Please have a good link wall with contextualized links from the case!

- The words pre/post-fiat are inconsequential to me. Just do proper impact framing.

K affs:

- I think these strategies can be very interesting and these debates tend to be very fun to listen to. However, I'm not the best person to evaluate dense KvK rounds (not that I won't).

- If your K aff has no ties to the topic whatsoever, don't read it in front of me, it won't be a fun time for either of us.

- Your aff should be explained with, at the bare minimum, a comprehensible, good idea. If I can't explain what I think your affirmative/advocacy does, the threshold for responses along with your speaks drops.

- The 1AR vs T-FW/T-USFG should have a robust counter-interpretation that articulates a vision for the topic. Having counter-definitions is a good thing to do. "Your interp plus my aff" is not convincing.

- I'm more lenient to 1ARs with case arguments that apply to T, but I'm very hesitant to vote on new cross-apps in the 2AR unless they're justified.

Phil:

- I'm most familiar with Kant since it was one of my generic strats, although I know some basic Hobbes/Testimony/Rawls.

- Please slow down on phil analytics/overviews as well.

- Be able to explain the difference between confidence and modesty and go for one in a rebuttal.

- If you can't explain your NCs syllogism in a way that I can explain it back, I'm not gonna feel comfortable voting on it.

- I think using examples to prove how a philosophy allows for some morally repugnant action is strategic.

- Please do proper weighing between framework justifications (if both sides keep repeating my fw precludes/hijacks yours without comparison, I will be sad and dock speaks)

Tricks:

- This is likely the type of debate like/want to see/feel comfortable evaluating the least. However, if this is your bread and butter, don't let that discourage you. That being said, if even I can tell you don't know how the trick you read interacts with the debate, your speaks will suffer.

- I'm from Texas and never debated in the Southeast or Northeast, so if you're from those states, err on the side of over-explanation.

- I'm probably going to be more lenient to you if you're not reading 30 hidden a prioris and skep triggers, so just keep that in mind.

- If you aren't winning truth testing, I'm probably not going to evaluate any of the tricks.

- I view presumption as a reason the judge should vote aff/neg in the absence of offense. I view permissibility as whether the aff/neg actions are permissible under some ethical theory/ in a world without morals. Winning skep will rely on you winning either 1- moral facts don't exist, 2- moral facts are unknowable, or 3- all moral statements are false.

Speaks:

- I'm generally pretty nice with speaks so long as you're clear and debate well - I prefer strategy over clarity but hey why not have both - I'll start from a 28.5 and go up or down depending on the round.

I'll up speaks for doing the following:

- ending a speech/prep early (<2 min) - up to +0.5 depending on strategy (I would prefer a shorter/concise and conversational speech to a repetitive long one, especially when debating a novice)

- if you make an arg with a funny analogy - up to +0.3 depending on quality

- keeping me interested in the debate (interesting affs, bold NCs, good/funny CX, etc.) - +0.1

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I participated in policy debate in high school (back when it was the National Forensic League) and college (CEDA).

I have judged LD as a "parent judge" since 2020.

I believe the purpose of debate is to learn the art of effective oral advocacy. Sometimes that means figuring out how to best persuade a judge that you do not know much about. Sometimes that means figuring out how to best reach a panel of judges with a variety of debate experiences and backgrounds.

I do not necessarily mind speed/spreading if it is comprehensible. Slurring out incomprehensible syllables does not count.

Counterplans, theory, etc., are not off limits. Still, they need to be persuasive. If you want to argue Thanos Was Right, be my guest and give it a try, but remember that I gave up my Saturday to volunteer to listen to this.

My most frequent ballot or post-round observation of where debaters sometimes fall short is failing to use final rebuttal to crystallize the round and give me of why I should vote FOR YOU. You should be able to boil it down to a succinct "elevator pitch" I will remember of why I should vote for you. Telling me why I should vote AGAINST THE OTHER SIDE is not the same thing. I want to vote FOR something, not just that the other side dropped your so-and-so card and I have to extend it across.

Rudeness, excessive cockiness, etc., are not persuasive and will not be tolerated.

At the end of the day, I want debaters to have fun, learn about the world's pressing problems, and learn something about themselves along the way.

Please don't spread.

For Presiding Officers, I consider in the top half of rankings, provided they are seamlessly running an efficient chamber. I lower ranking based on blatant errors that run counter to the momentum of the session.

No off the clock roadmaps, your time begins when you start speaking.

Don't tell me you are going to begin, we all know why we are in the room. Just read the room, and start speaking.

Clear organization and signposts are important.

I have been a debate coach for the last few yeara.  I am experienced in both LD and PF.  I prefer a conversational pace as opposed to spreading.  You can easily speak so quickly that the merits of your arguments can go unnoticed.  Above all, be respectful to your fellow competitor.  

Paradigms Page for Judging:

Welcome to the debate round, where my primary goal is to foster an environment that encourages thoughtful and strategic argumentation. Here are some key aspects of my judging paradigm:

Framework Debate: I take framework debate very seriously. A well-articulated framework can provide a solid foundation for evaluating the round. Clearly define your framework, explaining its role in the debate and how it should guide the decision-making process. If there are clashes over frameworks, make sure to thoroughly weigh and compare them throughout the round.

Clarity is Key: I appreciate clarity in argumentation. Clearly stated impacts and reasons for decisions are crucial for effective communication. If an argument is not clear, it becomes challenging for me to weigh its significance in the round. Take the time to articulate your points with precision and coherence.

Spreading: If you choose to spread, please keep in mind the importance of clarity. While I recognize that spreading is a valid and strategic technique, it is crucial to maintain a pace that allows for understanding. Provide clear signposts and roadmaps to help me follow your arguments. If spreading leads to a lack of clarity or fairness, it may negatively impact your speaker points and the overall evaluation of the round.

Roadmaps: Please present roadmaps and make them explicit and easy to follow. A well-structured timeline can significantly enhance the organization of your arguments. Ensure that each component of the timeline is thoroughly explained and connected to the overall narrative of your case.

Respectful Discourse: Debate is an intellectual exercise that thrives on the respectful exchange of ideas. Be mindful of your language and demeanor during the round. Disagreements are expected, but maintaining a level of respect for your opponents and your judge is crucial. A respectful and collegiate atmosphere contributes positively to the overall debating experience.

In conclusion, I am here to fairly evaluate the arguments presented in the round. A well-structured, clear, and respectful debate will not only enhance your chances of success but also contribute to a positive experience for all participants. Good luck, and let's have a constructive and engaging debate!

Hi Everyone. I am an experienced parent judge, and know how to take general notes and as long as you send a doc, that is well formatted, you can probably get away with talking a little faster. As for my general preferences.

1. YOU ARE IN A LAY ROUND! Thus I expect you to utilize delivery and external persuasive techniques. The winner isn't who can win the most arguments, its the one who wins the most impactful argument and can present it in a way that shows its impact. Thus not only explaining what the voters are, but why those must be the voter is very important.

2. CX is very important. This is the only time in the debate round where you can directly engage with you opponent, so use it. This is the time you show me how your opponent doesn't know what they are talking about, by asking strategic questions and replying strategically. Considering all this, it is never okay to be rude to your opponent or to make your opponent feel uncomfortable.

3. Delivery. Like I said you can go slightly faster (not spreading), as long as you are clear. Clarity is key. This is reflected not only in whether you stutter or not, but also word choice and being able to explain a concept in a way that is easy to understand.

These are my general preference, and should give you an idea of how you want to structure your speeches. Note I am taking notes, not flowing, thus it would be great if you guys could adapt to these criterions, cause otherwise the lense at which you look the round from may be different than how I look at the round.

Hello Debaters:

I am very happy to serve as a Judge for this round. I am a novice Judge and very early on my Judging learning curve. Despite that, I will strive to provide the best service I can in my role as the Judge.

I will base my judging on clear, well-articulated Framework-based argumentation:

1. present clearly defined Value, Criterion and Contentions
2. Support your Contentions with Claim - Warrant - Impact. How the Contention links back to Criterion?
3. present off-time roadmap at rebuttal

Clash is key. To get my vote, I encourage you to directly and systematically present and address / clash with the opponent's values/contentions, as presented. Please end with a summary of why your VALUE / CRITERION is the best supported and which arguments supported that.

I will NOT flow Cx. Absolutely no rapid speech or spreading and / or debate jargon that would most certainly handicap my comprehension of flow.

Good Luck!!

Shailesh (Shay) Sheth

Hello! I am Jharick Shields. I am a speech and debate coach at St. Andrew's Episcopal School. I have been coaching for about 20 years and have coached debaters into late elimination rounds in a number of national circuit and NSDA/NCFL tournaments. I have also been fortunate to watch them win a few. Debate allows us the ability to critique the world and to substantively engage with those criticisms. It is a forum in which we communicate those ideas. How you communicate in front of me will directly correlate to the ballot I write. I am truth with tech. I think that you should be able to create a cohesive ballot story while also understanding the fundamentals of LD argumentation. You need to show me that you are reading the sources you are citing. You need to prove that you understand the context behind the arguments you run. You should engage with the arguments of your opponent. Is T engagement with an aff that is nontopical? I would say yes. However, the debater that will earn higher speaks from me will also critically think and engage the affirmative.

Speed is an part of the game of debate. Judge adaptation is also part of the game. I have no problem saying that I missed something on my flow. If the argument is super important, signpost and weigh it. Don't assume that an extension through ink is enough for me to pull the trigger. A lot of times in great debates, amazing weighing tends to win out on cold concessions. Great debaters explain why the argument was conceded. I think that the best debaters figure that out, and close the door on them. I prefer few, well developed arguments to many. However, its your world. I tend to get excited when I am asked to bring out a lot of paper. Just don't assume I got everything you said if you aren't utilizing good communication skills.

I am an old fashioned policy kid, who was fortunate enough to do LD as well. Policy arguments are my heart. I like great plan texts, plan flaws are a thing, CPs with net benefits, strong case debates, Ks(bonus for Ks with policy alts). If thats what you do, I am a really good judge in those rounds. You still have obligations to communicate...

If you are a traditional debater, I still have plenty of love to share. Some of the best rounds I have seen on the national circuit are kids reading a traditional aff. I watch as their opponent gets ready to run 5 off and case. The 1ar gets up, extends their conceded criterion/case evidence, no links the DAs/Ks, perms the CP/Alt and sits down. And maybe the debater doesn't use those terms, but if you make the argument clearly and labeled, I will bridge the educational gap in debate jargon. I am also a very good judge for you.

If you caught me during high school, maybe I could have gotten into tricks/skep stuff. Basically, I can evaluate it, and if both debaters are going down that road together, I won't be as upset going there. I think HEAVY weighing is the only way that I won't gut check for anything else in that debate. Maybe not the best for you, but maybe you just need a somewhat tech judge in a small pool then I am good.

Honestly, I just am really excited to see debates. Run what you want, be respectful, have fun! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me prior to the round.

For MS Local Touraments:

Everything above applies. There are some things that students do in front of me that don't really help them win the ballot. Here are a few:

1.) Rules Lawyering: I get it, you want to show the judge that you know more about LD or at the very least have a lot of ethos. I must say, through my experience, these cases only end up with that debater losing some ethos. Telling me that something is an NSDA rule when we abide by MSHAA rules is sort of a bad argument. Telling me that a student must have a value, can't run a plan/CP, can't have a criterion, etc is just wrong. In theory, a student can run a case with just 1 contention and nothing else and it is fine. They don't lose the debate, they aren't disqualified, they live to debate another round. Win on the flow.

2.) New arguments: I don't flow these. If the new argument transcends the debate: a student has done something harmful in round, then its fine(but I will most likely intervene, since that is my duty). New evidence that supports arguments already made are fair game. A lot of debaters think that new evidence is the same as a new argument. It isn't.

3.) Mismanaging Drops: Debaters will tell me that an argument was dropped, but it wasn't. They will tell me that they have responded to an argument. They have not. Make sure that you are flowing. After the round, if you show me a quality flow of the debate(and if I have them on me). I will give you a candy/treat or something.

Okay, thanks!!

Overview

I judge mostly on the local level. I did LD and a little PF for 4 years as a competitor, and have been judging and coaching LD and a little World Schools and PF ever since (about 12 years now). While I am willing to entertain almost any strategy, I am most at home judging rounds that are more trad.

I strongly prefer that clash focus on points of significance (not on points that are unlikely to sway my ballot) and that speeches be organized. Roadmaps should be off-time and accurate. I try not to intervene much in the round, and I try to keep as rigorous a flow as possible.

I am generally well-read in the LD and PF topic literature. I have a very solid knowledge of ethics, but do not assume I understand whatever random philosophical argument you're running (esp. if it's postmodern or critical). Explanation early prevents confusion later.

This paradigm applies to LD and PF. If I am judging you in some other event, please ask for my preferences for that event. I will disclose and provide oral feedback only if doing so fits within the the rules and norms of the tournament. I promise I am more chill than my paradigm makes me sound. Include me on all email chains: resispeechanddebate@gmail.com.

Speaker Points

My baseline is 25 points for an average performance for your division. There are some pretty straightforward things (listed in no particular order) you can do in front of me to increase the points I award you:

• Don't overexplain or become repetitive
• Ask if I am ready before you start speaking
• Give roadmaps and stick to them (signpost as you go)
• Be civil with everyone in the room
• Avoid purposeless gesticulation and stand still
• Make eye-contact with the judge (look at me, not your opponent, during speeches and CX)
• Weigh the arguments (don't just give me competing sets of unweighed offense)
• Stand during speeches and cross-ex (if you are able) (this doesn't apply to virtual rounds)
• Project without shouting
• Don't troll or run joke/jibberish cases
• Don't quibble over highly similar frameworks
• Use all of your time (finishing with 0:30+ left is nonideal)
• Be strategic with what arguments you go for in later speeches
• Make good, warranted arguments (at the risk of stating the obvious...)

I very much appreciate when non-trad debaters adapt to accommodate trad debaters or when spreaders adapt to accommodate non-spreaders. I have never seen (and doubt I ever will see) a good round where people don't adapt to each other in this way. I am quite happy to tank your speaks into oblivion for going 300+wpm against someone speaking at 160wpm even if I vote you up. If you don't know your opponent's style or speed, feel free to ask (and don't lie if you are asked). I also appreciate funny and/or obscure Star Wars (be warned, I hate episodes VII-IX), Star Trek (DS9 is the best but I love them all), or LOTR references.

I also have some random pet peeves. For example, the verb is "rebut" not "rebuttal." "Rebuttal" is only ever a noun. Please do not say "I will now rebuttal this argument." Another example: "the resolution" is not "the resolved." "Resolution" is a noun; "resolved" is a conjugated verb functioning to communicate the idea "be it resolved that." And, lately, the difference between "exacerbate" and "exasperate" has been irking me. The former is to make worse or more serious, the latter is to make mildly annoyed or frustrated. You will exacerbate my exasperation if you conflate these terms.

Argumentation

I go into each round with a set of basic presumptions. I do not retreat *to* my presumptions absent argumentation; rather, I am willing to retreat *from* them if you argue with sufficient strength that I should abandon these presumptions. My presumptions aren't fallbacks; if you want me to ignore them you need to convince me that I should.

• I presume that arguments in LD should be topical (this is a non-negotiable redline in PF).
• I presume that it is the Affirmative's/Pro's burden to defend the whole resolution.
• I presume that theory is a reason to drop the argument, not the debater. I will ignore frivolous theory and RVIs.

Additionally:

• I will not evaluate new arguments unless (a) the round is otherwise irresolvable or (b) you failed to flag it as new when you had the chance (Neg literally can't flag new arguments made in the 2AR, so I will intervene to do that for them). An argument in rebuttal is not new if it is made at the first opportunity a debater has had to address a previous argument; e.g. in LD, a new point in the Neg's last speech can be rebutted by a new point in the 2AR.
• I don't mind counterplans in LD/PF (if they're not super niche). Please do not preach at me that counterplans are against the rules; that is a cop out designed to avoid substantitive debate.
• Dropped arguments are concessions (concessions still need to be impacted). You can drop your own arguments. An argument dropped by both sides is dead in the round; no amount of rhetorical necromancy will revive it and it will not figure into my decision.
• Win your round on the flow. Persuasive rhetoric is great, but I will vote up bad speakers who win on the flow over amazing speakers who lose key arguments. LD/PF is debate, not speech.
• I cannot reject a definition unless an alternative is proposed and argued for.

Here are some event-specific comments:

~~~~Lincoln-Douglas~~~~

• I prefer not to see Ks in LD and for cases to follow the traditional Value-Criterion set up, but this is a preference only, and not a hard-and-fast rule. I have voted for Ks in the past.
• I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting a standard (e.g. criterion, role of ballot) and by identifying who weighs most heavily under this standard. Winning the standard is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round. A standard is abusive if no plausible opposing strategy (or only an ultra-niche strategy no one but you has ever heard of) could link.

~~~~Public Forum~~~~

• As an event designed for lay judges, extreme and implausible link chains should be avoided (this is a preference, not a hard-and-fast rule). To use one example, conflict on social media platforms will not result in nuclear war. I am not opposed to extinction impacts where those impacts are actually plausible.
• Neither incredibly dense philosophy/high theory nor Ks belong in this event; you will lose my vote if you run these.
• The second Rebuttal needs to address *both* the Pro and the Con cases. The time skew is not an excuse for not having to do both. It is up to you to make the strategic decisions that will allow you to win the round given the time constraints.
• I presume a cost-benefit-analysis weighing mechanism in PF (unless that would be inconsistent with the plain text of the resolution). If you want me to use something else, you must provide solid reasoning as to why I should retreat from this presumption.

Evidence

• Paraphrasing--as long as it's an accurate representation of the evidence, and you're not paraphrasing a huge section of text--is not objectionable. It is ridiculous to me that one would suggest otherwise.
• I do not require or expect debaters to proactively share their cases with one another or with me, and will not penalize debaters for not automatically sharing cases when not specifically requested to do so. If you want someone's case or evidence, request it. I expect everyone to share evidence and cases when requested. I dislike asking for cases pro forma, and I prefer that debaters not call for or examine cases merely as an aid or replacement for flowing. Unless someone point blank refuses to share their cases or evidence with you and I witness that refusal, I won't take disclosure theory arguments seriously.
• I will only call for evidence if there is some serious question in my mind (or raised in the debate) as to a card's legitimacy. Unless there are accusations of dishonest practices, I will evaluate the credibility of sources based solely on the arguments made by the debaters in the round. I will *not* read cards after the round just to see if they're "great on this question."
• If you only have softcopies of evidence, and your opponent does not have a laptop, you must make your laptop available to your opponent if they have requested your evidence in order to prep. All softcopy evidence should be in a standard file format such as .doc, .docx, .pdf, or google docs.
• You have the right to request that your opponent delete any downloaded evidence or return any soft- or hardcopies at the end of the round. I fully expect debaters to comply with requests to delete or return evidence.

Speed

• I can understand somewhere around 275 words per minute depending on how clearly you articulate, but I prefer a speed at or below 225wpm. I will not vote you down just because you're going faster than I'd ideally like *as long as* I can still understand you. I cannot vote on what I did not understand.
• I will not shout "clear" during rounds (unless it's virtual). Instead, if I literally cannot understand a word you're saying, I will stop flowing and set my pen down. That is your cue to slow down. I will not vote on what I did not flow.

Timing

• I always time all speeches and prep. My timer keeps the official time. Feel free to time yourselves.
• Prep begins after all requested cards are shown or sent to the requesting team (unless the requesting team wants to or does begin prepping sooner). Prep ends when the debater tells me it ends or they run out of time. Debaters *must* clearly indicate to me when they are starting and ending prep so that I can keep time.
• A sentence begun before time expires may be completed after time has expired. Don't abuse this privilege.

Cross-Examination

• CX is non-binding unless its content is brought up in your immediately subsequent speech. For example, in LD, if you are Aff and raise some admission made in 2CX in the 2AR, I will not consider that admission. If the Aff wanted something in 2CX to be binding, Aff should've raised it in the 1AR.
• I do not allow flex prep (using prep as added cross-ex) or the reverse (using cross-ex as added prep) in my rounds unless required to do so by the tournament. If I am on a panel and the tournament rules are unclear, I will respect the majority decision on whether to allow it.
• I am not a fan of CXs that descend into shouting matches or snark-offs. CX should be interactive and probing, but not combative. Some people are entertained by gladiatorial CXs...I am not one of those people.
• CX time belongs to the questioner. Therefore, if the questioner asks a question just before time expires, I will still expect the respondent to answer the question, even though time has expired. Saying "that's cross" doesn't magically free the respondent from their obligation to answer.
• In PF GCF, everyone needs to participate. Ideally, each debater on a team will participate equally.

My Redlines

• I will vote down anyone who clearly and intentionally sets out to (1) advocate wanton killing of other human beings (e.g. extermination as a solution to overpopulation); (2) take a position which is clearly Racist, Ableist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, Sexist, Xenophobic, etc.; and/or (3) personally attack an opponent, school, or anyone involved in the activity.
• I will vote down anyone who (1) is exceptionally and insufferably rude, (2) makes threats, and/or (3) falsifies, misquotes, selectively edits, and/or otherwise dishonestly manipulates evidence in a manner which could have materially impacted the round.
• It is virtually never acceptable to read an obscene word as part of quoted evidence. The educational value must be quite significant; if I determine that the value isn't that high, I will ignore the entire card.

Finally

I don't bite--feel free to ask questions if you have any. If you need to refer to me, you should call me "judge" during a round. Outside of a round, "judge," "Mr. Shouse" ("sh"+"house") or "Brian" are acceptable. I use he/him/his pronouns (if you're comfortable with sharing, let me know which pronouns you prefer). Remember: just have fun and do your best. And if I happen to be judging your round, may the Force be with you!

Experience: High school AICE ELA teacher and assistant debate coach (3rd year) - LD/PF

Education: B.A. History, English Minor. You may generally assume that I have prior knowledge on topic content. I enjoy connections you make to your learning in history/gov/econ classes.

- If you are reading this, tell me! I appreciate when students take time to read judge paradigms.

- If I look stoic or disgruntled, it's only my poker face. I am enjoying the round and may break character if something I find funny/odd is said... : )

Debate (Judge/Coach)

General: I flow on paper and leave detailed comments on the ballot based on my flows. Anything I don't catch on the flow is on you, so slow down and ID anything you want to make sure I get. I do not disclose verbally (except on the very rare occasion that I do/must). NOTE: I am now flowing online more regularly.

• The stronger argument is the one which presents a clear framework, supports it logically through an objective criterion, and adequately addresses the opponent's position. The best arguments may use a combination of philosophy and real-world/evidential application. Contentions should always be numbered, and voters with weighing should be done at the end.
• Some rounds can get very technical. I don't love when rounds devolve into aggressive spreading and theory wars, but I understand that is part of the sport. If it's after breaks, send me your case. The most "spreading" I follow/appreciate should sound like an excited friend telling a story; you don't have to be the fastest reader in the world.

CASES: I will evaluate all cases but do prefer traditional discussion of topic and impacts. However (LD), I am comfortable with phil (if you explain slowly and clearly), "soft-left" Ks and other common Ks (such as: cap, set col, anthropocentrism), CPs, and disads. No issues if you run those. Anything beyond that you want to run that's "progressive" I will struggle to adjudicate effectively. Running theory when merited is legitimate, but do it respectfully and help me significantly on ROB/ROJ to vote in those rounds, as I have a hard time evaluating. I want to learn more, soplease adjust or ease me into any heavy progressive stuff pre- or post-round so that I can improve in the future.

Type: Policymaker, but flexible; I judge trad rounds in a techy fashion / I judge tech rounds in a lay fashion (due to my current abilities and experience). "Flay" sounds strange ~ but is probably most accurate, currently.

Likes: Unusual frameworks and contentions ("variety is the spice of life"); clear weighing; analyzing your or the opponent's evidence (i.e., that you actually know the cards beyond the tagline or stats and can explain its relevance in-round); good clash (not talking past or beyond opponent); consistent extensions; clean rounds.

Dislikes: Running cases you are clearly unfamiliar with; saying "turn X" when it is not evidently a turn; relying too much on a single "trump card" without contextualizing it in-round; not using the full allotted time or going over time (I will not count anything you attempt to say after time); "giving up" when you feel outclassed (and its inverse: steamrolling less-prepared opponents).

CONGRESS: I do not regularly judge Congressional Debate, but I spectated it throughout the 2024 NSDA Nationals, and I have some experience coaching. I highly value decorum and the role-play of the debate. Students who consistently contribute in session, through a combination of incisive questioning, strong speeches, and active participation in the chamber, will receive top ranks. POs will ALWAYS make top 6, barring some terrible calamity! Your presence should tangibly make the chamber better. I do enjoy unique speeches and angles (even on the rare occasion, abstention speeches and votes may be merited).

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

Speech (Judge if necessary)

All categories: Presentation is key. Even the best prepared speeches will not resonate with the audience if the delivery is lacking. I will be looking for PVLEGS and a confident demeanor. Follow the rhetorical triangle and incorporate ethos, pathos, and logos as necessary for your purpose. At the same time, your speech should be equally developed, with an organization, vocabulary, and evidence appropriate to your event.

Let me know prior to round if you require additional clarification on my Speech Judging preferences.

UCLA '24

tajsmyname@gmail.com

I debated policy for four years at Lovejoy High School, in Lucas, Texas.

General Things

- I much prefer a CP/DA debate over a K debate, but you do you.

- Speed is fine as long as you're clear.

- Tech > Truth

- I don't keep up with topics so don't assume I know much about all topic-related jargon/acronyms.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

Put me on the email chain please - jettsmith7@gmail.com They/He pronouns

Info: I am the head Coach at Highland High School, located in Pocatello, Idaho. I have been coaching for 5 years, I competed for 5 as well. I did mostly Policy in HS but I dabbled in LD and PF as well. I debated in Idaho which had a very traditional circuit, which is sad because I find the progressive style more fun. I Have a bachelors in Communication, Media, and Rhetoric, and I double minored in Advocacy, and Gender and Sexuality studies. Either way I am a flow judge, speaking skills matter factor into my decision insofar as good speaking is necessary for getting your arguments clearly on the flow. I am pretty much cool with whatever, but I think accessibility is really important. If your opponents ask you not to spread or to slow down and you speed right past them, that might be enough to get you dropped. I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (IE homophobia/racism/sexism, etc good)

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging off offense weighed on the value premise/value criterion debate. Essentially, I pick one value at the end of the debate based off of who proves theirs is the best/most important standard to judge the round off of, and then I see the criterion for that value as a scale. Only arguments that apply to that specific criterion factor into my decision. But I can be convinced to judge under a tabs paradigm. Kritiks and Theory are great but I am not "in the know" when it comes to the current Meta of LD so please walk me through it. Speed is also fine but accessibility matters a lot to me so please be cognizant of your opponents speed preferences.

PF Paradigm:

I prefer traditional PF because I want it to be accessible to debaters at all levels and from all backgrounds, but I have judged Nat Circuit PF a lot. Accessibility is important to me. If your opponents don't do K's, Theory, or Speed, I would ask that you don't either. I believe that second rebuttal needs to both defend and attack, and I do not weigh new arguments given by the second final focus. Weighing also needs to be answered in the speech following it. For offense if I can't draw a clean line from final focus back to the speech the argument started at I won't vote on it.

CX:

I love policy debate. I default to stock issues but will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. Make sure you layer the debate for me (what comes first). Collapsing onto your most important arguments in the last two rebuttals is essential, as is splitting the Neg Block. I love Topicality but need your shell to be complete with standards, voters, and a standard to judge it off of. I love Kritiks but they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love Disadvantages but they need to have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s), and impacts. And I love Counterplans but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit. I love On Case debate but it should be more than just generic impact defense. Analytical arguments are great as long as you can tell me why you don't need evidence for it.

Email: zoe.c.soderquist@gmail.com

Yes I want to be on the email chain. I will -2 speaks if you ask for my email, it's at the top of my paradigm. If you're unintelligible and don't os it's not going on my flow.

Background: I'm a private coach and previous coach at SWSDI and Brophy. I debated LD for four years and one year of college policy. While I specialized in LD, I've tried every debate event at least once.

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

LD/Policy TLDR

Read anything at any speed and I can probably evaluate it (though preferably slow down, even just a tiny bit, for author name and tags). Ask specific questions if you have weird things you want to run that an average former debater judge wouldn't understand.

If you're reading obscure literature, I would appreciate a brief explanation.

For theory, I don't mind if you read a shell but I don't like when debaters read several shells purely out of strategy when no abuse occurred or to throw off a novice.

Don't be rude, I will dock speaks and it will affect my decision.

I love signposting, weighing, proper extensions

For policy--I have had consistent problems with rounds running super late because sending takes forever. You get 5 min TOTAL for the round for sending. People constantly pretend that they're having tech issues just to prep more and it's quite obvious. I'm sympathetic to true issues but if there is not a good reason to go over 5 min it gets taken out of prep.

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

Defaults (I can change if you explain why):

Tech > truth

Comp worlds > truth testing

RVIs good

Competing interps > reasonability

DTD > DTA

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

Random:

Flex prep is fine

Tag team is fine

I will not be timing unless you ask.

Don't care if you sit or stand.

No using rest of cross for prep.

Asking for cards after speeches is fine, but actually reading cards is on prep. If you ask for the card during cross, you can use cross time to read it.

If your opponent asks for a piece of evidence during their prep, they can keep prepping the whole time it takes you to find the card. You get two minutes max and then I'm deleting it from my flow.

Tag team cross is fine.

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

Misc LD/policy things:

I don't think you have to read a framework with a plan, but if your opponent reads one then you're kind of screwed. I will eval a framework if there is one and framework is important for me.

Please label each section of your K (or any case, for that matter), it's really hard to figure out things when it's not labeled so it helps your case.

If you're running a pre-fiat ROB, you still need to answer your opponent's post-fiat framing (if applicable) to fully win framing.

Please follow all general LD rules (no new in 2, no conflicting offs, no double turns, etc.)

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

PF paradigm-On a tech panel, you can do whatever you want. On a lay panel, treat me like a lay judge. I feel that PF should be a debate any judge can walk into and understand, but if you're given a fully tech panel feel free to do what you want. However, take a moment to think if you're reading progressive in front of an LD/policy judge if your argument is structured properly, you know what you're doing, and you'll make the round interesting by reading it. If not, reconsider.

- Asking for cards and reading isn't on prep unless the panel disagrees.

- I watch cross it shouldn't be used as a rebuttal it should be a time to actually ask questions. Please don't excessively talk over each other, keep it civil.

- Defense and offense aren't sticky I need extensions in summary or I don't bring it into final focus.

- No new arguments in final focus.

- Ask me any other questions, or refer to my LD/policy paradigms.

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

Congress-

- Do not use debate terminology like "extend," "outweigh," or "vote aff."

- I care more about rhetoric than argument in a congress speech. Construction > content.

- Giving a good speech is not a guaranteed first place. You have to be active within the round (asking questions + motions) to do well. I keep track of people who raise motions and ask questions.

- Please avoid using a computer and/or fully prewritten speeches. At least print out the speech and paste it on a legal pad (c'mon, it's very easy to fake a speech).

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)

Hi, I'm Grady!

I started doing debate in middle school and competed in policy, LD, and public forum. I was away from debate for awhile and have gotten back into judging this year, primarily in PF and LD.

I prefer substantive engagement in whatever form you prefer. I prefer line by line argumentation and I look for some kind of framework by which to evaluate a round.

I have the most experience in framework-heavy debates. I am open to counterplans, DAs, etc. as long as you avoid overly-using debate jargon when explaining the structure of the args. I'll happily evaluate a critical round, but don't assume I have a background in the lit you're reading and make the clash explicit.

I don't take myself too seriously; if you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them before the round. Run whatever you have prepared and be nice to your opponent.

In CX debate I'm as basic as a stock issues judge can get, not much to it. In LD I wouldn't say I necessarily have an exact paradigm, so surprise me. One thing I always look for though is clash; clash I what makes a debate entertaining in my eyes, and as such carries huge weight. You win the clash debate, you just might win the whole round.

Head coach, Rosemount, MN. Do both policy & LD, and I don’t approach them very differently.

I’m a chubby, gray-haired, middle-aged white dude, no ink, usually wearing a golf shirt or some kind of heavy metal shirt (Iron Maiden, or more often these days, Unleash the Archers). If that makes you think I’m kind of old-school and lean toward soft-left policy stuff rather than transgressive reimaginations of debate, you ain’t wrong. Also, I’m a (mostly retired now) lawyer, so I understand the background of legal topics and issues better than most debaters and judges. (And I can tell when you don’t, which is most of the time.)

I was a decent college debater in the last half of the 1980s (never a first-round, but cleared at NDT), and I’ve been coaching for over 30 years. So I’m not a lay judge, and I’m mostly down with a “circuit” style—speed doesn’t offend me, I focus on the flow and not on presentation, theory doesn’t automatically seem like cheating, etc. However, by paradigm, I'm an old-school policymaker. The round is a thought experiment about whether the plan is a good idea (or, in LD, whether the resolution is true).

I try to minimize intervention. I'm more likely to default to "theoretical" preferences (how arguments interact to produce a decision) than "substantive" or "ideological" preferences (the merits or “truth” of a position). I don't usually reject arguments as repugnant, but if you run white supremacist positions or crap like that, I might. I'm a lot less politically "lefty" than most circuit types (my real job was defending corporations in court, after all). I distrust conspiracy theories, nonscientific medicine, etc.

I detest the K. I don't understand most philosophy and don't much care to, so most K literature is unintelligible junk to me. (I think Sokal did the world a great service.) I'll listen and process (nonintervention, you know), but I can't guarantee that my understanding of it at the end of the round is going to match yours. I'm especially vulnerable to “no voter” arguments. I’m also predisposed to think that I should vote for an option that actually DOES something to solve a problem. Links are also critical, and “you’re roleplaying as the state” doesn’t seem like a link to me. (It’s a thought experiment, remember.) I’m profoundly uncomfortable with performance debates. I tend not to see how they force a decision. I'll listen, and perhaps be entertained, but need to know why I must vote for it.

T is cool and is usually a limitations issue. I don't require specific in-round abuse--an excessively broad resolution is inherently abusive to negs. K or performance affs are not excused from the burden of being topical. Moreover, why the case is topical probably needs to be explained in traditional debate language--I have a hard time understanding how a dance move or interpretive reading proves T. Ks of T start out at a disadvantage. Some K arguments might justify particular interpretations of the topic, but I have a harder time seeing why they would make T go away. You aren’t topical simply because you’ve identified some great injustice in the world.

Counterplans are cool. Competition is the most important element of the CP debate, and is virtually always an issue of net benefits. Perms are a good test of competition. I don't have really strong theoretical biases on most CP issues. I do prefer that CPs be nontopical, but am easily persuaded it doesn't matter. Perms probably don't need to be topical, and are usually just a test of competitiveness. I think PICs are seldom competitive and might be abusive (although we've started doing a lot of them in my team's neg strats, so . . .). All of these things are highly debatable.

Some LD-specific stuff:

Framework is usually unimportant to me. If it needs to be important to you, it’s your burden to tell me how it affects my decision. The whole “philosophy is gibberish” thing still applies in LD. Dense, auto-voter frameworks usually lose me. If you argue some interpretation of the topic that says you automatically win, I’m very susceptible to the response that that makes it a stupid interp I should reject.

LD theory usually comes across as bastardized policy theory. It often doesn’t make sense to me in the context of LD. Disclosure theory seems to me like an elitist demand that the rest of the world conform to circuit norms.

I am more likely to be happy with a disad/counterplan type of LD debate than with an intensely philosophical or critical one. I’ll default to util if I can’t really comprehend how I’m supposed to operate in a different framework, and most other frameworks seems to me to ultimately devolve to util anyway.

Feel free to ask about specific issues. I'm happy to provide further explanation of these things or talk about any issues not in this statement.

First and foremost, I am a coach of a high school team. This means I judge based on how I expect my team to behave. Rudeness will cause me to score lower. This is applicable in both speech and debate. However, as long as you mind your manners in IEs, we’ll be okay. While debate can get heated, it should never get disrespectful. That said, I judge debate based on the following:

PF and LD - I am a judge who heavily favors truth. I place logic above all else. If your arguments aren’t logical and supported well, they will not flow. Additionally, you should have sufficient evidence to support your ideas. If you are throwing out arguments that aren't supported with evidence, they will be less likely to seem reasonable. I don’t flow cross. During this time, I am often writing feedback. I am not a fan of spreading during LD and PF, as I am often not on the case share and am often trying to follow your words.

Congress - Congress should not be boring. If you are not careful, congress can quickly become "boring" or less engaging for your judge. That said, the way you speak matters. You should have logic and reasoning within your speeches, but you should also be engaging. As long as you are engaging and logical, you stand a strong chance.

I am a Debate coach for Policy, LD, and PF currently.

I debated in college, so I can flow speed and understand all types of arguments presented. In policy I evaluate Topicality and Kritiks before on case considerations. Give me reason for the ballot in all styles of debate and impact your arguments. Sign posting helps a lot to keep the round clean on the flow. Please use cross examination for understanding and clash on arguments but dont forget to bring it up in your speech as well.

I listen to all types of arguments but especially like framework debates and debate theory. Don't forget to impact your theory arguments as well. Remember that an argument is a tag and a warrant. Make sure to discuss, question and clash with the warrants of evidence.

Vamsi Velidandla Paradigm

1. Delivery Style
1. Slower pace with clear articulation
2. Focus on the key points and reinforce them
3. Avoid spreading, your talk must contain meaningful information
2. Evidence
1. Must be quantitative with clear and credible references
2. Wider range of sources is a plus point, not just
3. Argument
1. No offensive terms, no personal attacks
2. Must be sensitive to opponent’s stance/beliefs
3. Do not break logical fallacies, be sure to point out if your opponent violates one
4. Make sure you signpost and point out which of your opponent points you are responding to
4. Cross Examination
1. Be respectful and do not interrupt
2. Answers should address the question
5. Personal Preferences
1. Explain all abbreviations / acronyms / jargon
2. Summarize your key points clearly at the end

I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019. Available as a judge-for-hire via HiredJudge per request.

9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, you (hopefully) would get my judge email on there instead.

I don’t currently operate from a laptop so my ballot speed is not ideal atm; I’m usually typing out paragraphs from a doc until the last allowable minute, but my timing is not the most perfect. You won’t always get a pageful but its my personal policy to give a minimum of 5 sentences. If you send over an email asking about your round; it might take up to 24 hours post tournament but I -will- reply back.

_____

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.

Sportsmanship (like, dont lower your performance/ be rude on purpose, please) > Argumentative Cohesion & Organization > CX utilization & Clash > Framework Discourse > Delivery > Structural Presence, but I am a little stricter on citation~ doesn’t need to be the full date but it needs gotta be there

Congress: (also see above) but I like those who can flip arguments in their favor;You dont need to be extroverted to be PO, but POs should be attentive with overall energy in the chamber and facilitating ethical and intentional inclusion beforesilence becomes a huge issue in round, in addition to strict yet -visible- timekeeping.

RFD FLOW - I try to have at least a paragraph summary explaining my flow (sometimes it’ll be copy/pasted)

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.

(For those who have read all the way through, some free interp gems that will be erased in a month, besides the basics: storyboarding, stop animation, pixar’s “inside out,” samurai jack, sound track your pieces.)

i will listen to any argument as long as the warrants makes sense. I tend to have a high threshold for voting on extinction scenarios, doesn’t mean I won’t, but your link chain has to be solid.
Non topical stuff needs to show me why giving you the ballot outweighs topical debates.

Not very receptive to shady theory. I want a reasonable argument indicating abusiveness.
I vote on arguments made in a voters section. These arguments must be substantiated throughout the debate. But I don’t want to intervene so it’s your job to write my RFD.

i want to be on the email chain but I find speech drop works best.

I don’t time. Time each other. Don’t be rude, keep it professional and avoid any personal attacks. Kindness will be rewarded in speaks.

if you plan on running anything different might double check before the round that I’m okay with it. I listen to most stuff. I love K debates over super policy rounds. I find debates that collapse to topicality and theory very boring, if the round necessitates such arguments I understand but I’d rather your strategy make sense to the context of the round.

Always send a marked version of the doc if you end up going off schedule and be clear when you’re reading anything not on the doc. I flow off the doc, I still want to understand you when you’re speaking so don’t abuse the fact that I flow off the dock and read so fast you’re incomprehensible.

Speaks

30-29: Expect to see you in out rounds. Amazing well thought out strategy. Clear arguments.
29-28: Few logical inconsistencies, good strategy and good overall performance.
28-27: Confusing at times and suspect strategy. Made the round unclear.
27-26: Mostly unclear. Strategy is poorly planned.
26-25: Non responsive and no viable strategy.
25-20: Reprehensible behavior.

Debate- This is my third year judging. I am well informed and have done my homework so as to judge fairly and effectively.

-Speak with clarity and at a reasonable pace so that I can take notes.

-I look for effective presentation, organization and strong evidence.

Speech- Not judged too may tournaments but familiarizing myself with the various platforms of speech. I look for effective presentation, body language and facial expressions.

Best Wishes!!

I think that debate is the most fun and important educational activity in the world. I'm a former coach of a national circuit team which experienced a fair amount of success during my tenure. I have coached multiple teams who have appeared at the TOC in Policy Debate, including one TOC championship. I have also coached multiple teams to championships at the Middle School Nationals tournament in both PF and Policy debate.

I'm generally a "progressive" judge in the sense that I enjoy theory debates concerning what debate ought to be and how we can provide the best educational experience for competitors. I'm also happy to listen to criticisms and counterplans in those events which have not traditionally utilized those types of arguments.

I've been focusing more on my day job for the past few years and therefore haven't judged as many rounds during the last several seasons. Don't assume I know the jargon specific to this particular year or your particular case, even if it is a camp case. I'm generally good with jargon specific to debate and I can flow a fairly high degree of speed.

At the end of the day, have the debate you want to have, make it the best debate that you can show me, have fun, and I'll reward that.

P.S.: Please do your part to help keep the round running on time. I'll keep track of time just in case, but I'd rather that you not make me police speech & prep times.

E-mail: benrichwill@gmail.com

Hi y'all! My Tabroom name is Benjamin (he/him) but I also go by Ben. I am Graduate Assistant at Western Kentucky University in the second year of an MAE program. I debated for KCKCC in 2016 and 2017 where I competed in a variety of debate formats, including NDT/CEDA, NFA-LD, and NPDA.

Top level, I view debates through the lens of comparative advantages; put simply, you win if the world you are advocating for is better than the other team's. Tell me what your best arguments are and why they mean you should get the ballot.

Argumentative innovation will be rewarded. I tend to like teams who stretch the boundary of the resolutional question without abandoning topic education.

I would like the downtime time of debates (document sending, setting up stands, etc) to be minimized as possible.

Framework/Affirmative Kritiks: I never read affirmative kritiks while competing so if teams would give a good 2AC explainer that would be nice. I like framework debates because they display analytical skills of speakers; debaters who go beyond my expectations will get high speaks. While I primarily think that debate is a game and fairness is a voting issue, I am not fixed to that notion. For the nukes topic, almost all of my research has been policy arguments.

Disadvantages: Affirmatives should read offense against disadvantages. Negatives should apply the disadvantage to the case debate. Impact turn debates are fun for me.

Counterplans: The best 1NC's have case specific counterplans. I err negative on most theory arguments but I still can be convinced to vote aff on overly abusive counterplans, for example CP’s that have purely artificial competition. The best 2AC responses involve add-ons/new offense. Unless there is a reason otherwise, I view counterplans through the lens of sufficiency.

Negative Kritiks: I like negative teams that can adequately explain how their alternative resolves all of the links to the criticism. I like affirmative teams that effectively weigh the impacts of the 1AC against the K

Case debate: Negatives should engage with the scholarship of the 1AC. While generic impact defense is important, it does not suffice as a strategy. Affirmative teams should utilize their 1AC in the 2AC/1AR to hedge against offensive negative arguments.

Conditionality: I generally think that hard debate is good debate and that affirmatives teams should be able to defend the 1AC from all angles. However, I have become increasingly sympathetic to affirmative teams that have to defend against multiple counterplans with multiple conditional planks.

Pronouns: she/her

Experience: I am a college student and this is my second year judging LD and I was a traditional LD debater for 4 years.

I will be flowing the entire round so if I am not looking up at you don't assume I am not listening. I will do my best to provide in-depth ballots for each debater to help you understand my decision.

Tech Problems: If anyone in the round cuts out or disconnects time stops and it will resume once everyone is reconnected.

Speed: I can handle speed but if you chose to spread, share your case to this email: nswilliams2026@gmail.com

Also, if there is contentious evidence in round or if evidence is called for I want it sent to me at that same email or in the file drop.

General debate comments:

I have only debated/judged traditional LD so cut me some slack if you chose to run circuit arguments (theory, kritiks, etc.). But as long as you flesh them out I should be able to follow.

Framework: State your value and value criterion at the top of your case. I find it easier to follow cases where I know what I am weighing each contention under. I love to see a clash between opposing frameworks! If you both just agree on util it boils down to impact weighing (not necessarily a bad thing but it feels more like PF than LD).

If you have a super obscure framework make sure to flesh it out well and tell me how to weigh under it!

Rebuttals: Before each rebuttal please give me an off-time road map of how you will be going down the flow. I love line by line but don't let your line by line distract from the main points of the debate and the overall bigger picture.

Cross Ex: BE POLITE. This doesn't mean you can't cut off your opponent if they are rambling and avoiding answering your question but just don't be condescending or rude. I will take away speaker points if you are being disrespectful to your opponent. Talking over each other in an online tournament isn't helpful for anyone (especially the judge).

Last speeches: Give me key voting issues in your last speech or crystallization of the round. AFF, I would prefer if you didn't go line by line in your last speech unless you think it's extremely necessary.

If you have any other questions about this paradigm or in general please ask them before the round!!

Jean-Luc Willson (He/They)

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

Updated 1/9/2024

I competed in the Wyoming high school debate circuit for 4 years and am currently a 2nd year policy debater at the University of Wyoming and debate coach for Hot Springs County High School. I request that everyone be respectful to each other both in and out of the round and I will not tolerate any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism or any other discrimination and intolerance.

LD

I am well versed in LD debate as I did it for three years in high school. I like to see clash in substance, especially if the values are the same or similar. A framework debate is important, but without a winning link to said framework I see no reason to vote. Make sure to prioritize impacts in your voters. Make sure your claims are substantiated with warrants, even if there isn't evidence for your claim. Smart, logical, analytic arguments are amazing, but they need to be well explained and warranted. Debate is a space for students to do what they want, so "this isn't policy debate" isn't a real argument. Explain why what they have done is bad for LD, don't just assert that is. This is probably best done on the framework level of the debate, have a value that prioritizes theory over pragmatism and convince me that their focus on consequences is bad.

PF

This is the format I am least familiar with so make sure to tell me in round what is the most important facet I need to vote on. Prioritize impacts over anything else. I have no familiarity with this topic, so make sure to be clear and explain your arguments in depth so I know exactly what I need to evaluate when voting

Policy

I am most well versed here as this is the format I do in college. Bottom line is that I am comfortable with any position that you would like to run. I am familiar with K debate, multi-plank counterplans, and theory debates, so perform to your hearts content as I should be able to follow along. Speed is not an issue for me, in fact I quite enjoy a fast debate, especially in the early speeches. I have absolutely no familiarity with this topic so make sure that the link chains are clearly explained and impacts are very noticeable and well explained.

DAs

Love a good DA, especially at the internal link level. The better the internals are the more convinced I will be to vote on it and that's where I think AFFs can put the most convincing pressure. Impacts are important and I love turns case arguments so give them in your overviews.

CPs

I am fairly comfortable with counterplans at both a functional and theoretical level. Perms are a test of competition, so simply winning the perm doesn't mean you get the net benefit for AFFs. I tend to kick the counterplan for negatives if they lose it and then evaluate the impacts with the status quo, so if you are against judge kick make a strong push in the rebuttals. I like to see condo debates, I tend to lean towards multiple conditional worlds, however I will look at conditionality as its own separate debate and if the AFF wins then the AFF wins the round. If you are to have a condo debate, please make it in depth and worthwhile, not shallow one liners. Make sure all counterplans have a clear net benefit and explain the specific mechanisms that they use to solve the AFF.

Case

Teams should have better case debates around a few, well-developed args in the 2NR. I like to see a bunch of stuff to test the AFF early and then boil down to one or two positions per sheet that have a really convincing story. Go in-depth and use examples and applications to show why it mitigates the solvency of the AFF and makes the DA/Alt more threatening. Teams go for too much in the 2NR/2AR, make the debate small and powerful.

Ks vs. Policy AFF

I am comfortable with kritikal debate as I run Ks in college. FW heavy Ks are valid and having an in depth discussion of how I should weigh the impacts of the round is important. Alternatives can be largely theoretical if you have a strong defense of FW, but it does make the burden of the NEG higher. Alternatives do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF nor result in the AFF but NEG teams should at least explain why I shouldn't evaluate those impacts and how it solves the links. Make sure link packages are specific to the AFF and explain the links that were made in the round. Overviews are cool because they provide an opportunity to engage with the impacts of the AFF and solvency to create a presumption push.

FW vs. K AFF

FW is a T argument at its core, so you should provide me with impacts for why their model of debate is bad for topic engagement. I will evaluate both fairness and clash as impacts, although I tend to be more persuaded by clash and skills. TVAs help a lot, give me reasons it accesses their lit base and solves your offense. I will vote on AFF impact turns, but I like to see a well developed counter-interp. This should function like a counterplan/alt that solves the AFF and NEG offense. Debating about debate is one of the most fun parts about this activity, so enjoy your opportunity to have a meta discussion about the activity you are participating in!

T

I am comfortable with topicality. Just like every other position, make sure to prioritize the impacts and why your opponents interpretation is harmful for debate. I probably won't vote on RVI. In depth explanations are appreciated as these debates can often become very complicated. Explain why grounds and limits are important to the debate i.e. why they are internal links to your larger impacts. 2NRs should directly compare models of debate, what does debate look like under their interpretation, what's the case list, is there a TVA? These are all very important questions to answer.

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

I am a fifth year parent judge and a former competitor in Policy in the late 80s. Currently, I judge for my daughter who is a small school LD debater. Pref me high if you want a FLAY judge

No spreading - I do NOT appreciate spreading. Skimming through a document trying to figure out where you are is NOT debate. I need to be able to follow and understand your arguments and responses. Dazzle me with your intellect, not your speed. I will not be relying on the docs - they're only good for reference.

For LD circuit debate - It’s in your best interest to give me signposts (a lot of them, and be clear) - policy, case, K, disad, counter plan, etc. I will evaluate the flow per your direction. If T comes before case, tell me why and we're good. I like K when done well, but it's not an automatic win. I enter the round tabula-rasa, if you're running something complex please explain it well. Make sure I know where you are in the flow!

For Parliamentary Debate - I judge you based on what you tell me, not what I know. There’s never a bad side of the motion. I will be flowing all your arguments, and I make my decisions based on who convinces me their arguments are the strongest. Don’t forget to weigh, this is crucial to how I make my decisions! Any impacts are welcome. The extra 30 seconds are intended to complete a thought, not start a new one. Ties are awarded to the Opposition. Please rise when you want to interrupt with a question. Time pauses for POCs and POs, not POIs. Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun!

For all other debate most of the same points go - run whatever you’re comfortable with and I’ll judge the way you tell me to. A list of preferences:

1. Contentions should be based on quality, not quantity. I’m not going to vote for you if you fly through 12 contentions and tell me your opponent dropped half of them.

2. In circuit debate you should slow down and literally write the ballot for me. I don't like tricks, but for everything else tell me what weighs and I will vote for the most convincing.

3. I will weigh all arguments carried through, and consider the impact of dropped arguments per your direction. (please don't drop your opponent's entire case). In LD, please weigh your argument against your framework.Framework is crucial in LD, and you should always have impacts. In all others, please clearly state how your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

4. I don't consider any new arguments in final speeches.

5. In your final speeches, please number or letter your voting points so we are all on the same page. I’ll flow you regardless, but it’s in your best interest.

Debate should be educational and fair. Good luck and have fun!

I am a parent judge of a debater.

I prefer calm and logical debates with believable arguments.

Dont like over exaggeration to extinction

Dont really care about framework but you cab read it if you want.

Good luck and have fun!

I am not comfortable with spreading, so please speak at a moderate pace and be clear. I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Demonstrate your knowledge of the topic. Please do not just throw statistics out, explain how they matter. That being said, do also ensure you have evidence based arguments. Have structured speeches. Warrant and weight your arguments.

Keep track of your own timings. Enjoy the round!!

LD DEBATERS: Send your case docs to mhyun.debate@gmail.com

About me:

• Parent judge
• Occasional judge
• Computer Science background
• English is my second language

Expectations:

• Do not spread. If I cannot follow you, I cannot increase points.
• Emphasize your points clearly.
• Use gestures and pauses purposely.
• Use quantitative data if you are delivering information.
• Use warrants to support your claims.
• Use simple and easy words.
• Avoid jargons. If you need to use, define it before or right after you use one.
• Be respectful to your audience and other speakers or debaters.

Remember the most important rule for all types of speeches (and writings): respect your audience. Tell them what they want to hear instead of what you want to tell. If you don't excite them, you may not get enough attention. Entertain them, educate them, and respect their time.

I am a traditional debate judge, not a progressive judge. Please speak clearly, and don't spread.