As a judge, I am personally very big on delivery and the style in which the presentation is done. I am a strong believer that a passionate, engaging form of delivery is crucial for any successful speech. I like to see active participation and I also like when competitors avoid direct-reading like the plague!
I’ve been judging both speech and congress for over 5 years and can say that the experience has been great!

I am a lay parent judge. Please be organized in your presentation -- I like solid arguments articulated clearly. Please don't talk too fast, mumble, speak softly, or do anything that would make it harder for me to follow -- give me a clear way to vote for you. I may ask for cards at the end.

Be civil: if you use foul language, you will automatically get a 25 in Speaker Points.

Be considerate: If you ask a question in crossfire, please allow your opponents to answer your questions. I need to hear two sides - it wouldn't be a debate otherwise.

I look forward to hearing all of your presentations -- have fun!

Cade, he/him

competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present

coach @ NSU University School: '24-Present

Past Affiliations - debated @ Topeka High School: '17-'21, coached @ North Broward Prep: ‘22-‘24

Don't be mean, this should be a fun event for everyone. People who are mean will be punished via lower speaks. People who are actively awful (discriminatory, violent, or hateful to no end) will be punished via a combination of lower speaks, an L, and a discussion with relevant coaches/adults affiliated with your school.

cade.blenden03@gmail.com

Policy

- Style

Not very good at flowing theory/T debates executed at full speed - anything with lots of analytics should be slowed down a decent bit. In general, anything you want me to get down verbatim should have a corresponding shift in speed and intonation that allows me to write it all down - make it seem like it matters!

I find that I am often compelled by good judge instruction. Doing it increases the likelihood that I pick up what’s being put down. I think solid 2NR/2ARs are intentionally persuasive and spend time doing non line-by-line things - such as describing how the ballot should be written and why - that make getting me on your side much easier.

I am very happy when the final rebuttals are given off of paper/'the flow.'

I appreciate well-organized speech docs/efficient use of Verbatim, and have a equal disliking toward poor doc formatting or incredibly inefficient use of Verbatim.

I am unable to resolve or engage issues that occur outside of the debate round. If there is a concern about someone's behavior/conduct outside of the debate round itself, it should be handled with tab and other relevant adults.

If I notice clipping in a debate, I will decide the round against the team committing the violation. I may or may not stop the round, depending on how egregious it is - perhaps the educational value of the debate itself still exists if the infraction is more minor. If I do not notice, an accusation must be supplanted by evidence, and in the case of an ethics challenge I will default to tournament procedure/NSDA rules where applicable.

- Argument

In terms of argument preference, I am willing and able to listen to anything. Strongly tech > truth, though an argument being on the side of truth makes tech much easier to explain and win. Below are things I enjoy or think about different arguments.

Call out bad evidence---old internals that don't make sense anymore, impacts that should have been triggered, things under highlighted, etc.---I am super on the level there and think UQ, internal link scenarios, etc., mostly for policy affirmatives and DAs, should be updated.

-- T: not many preferences, not really a big fan of "whole res" type arguments, I like when procedural impacts come with examples of what a harmful/unfair/antieducational model of debate produces/looks like. If someone can explain how reasonability works to me, and wins that it is better than competing interpretations, then perhaps I will be reasonable. Otherwise, competing interpretations seems to make sense.

-- other NEG procedurals (ASPEC, plan flaws, etc.): I believe plan texts should be well-written, and am happy to listen to procedural arguments about affirmatives or counterplans where that is not the case. Acronyms and a lack of periods seem to be two common problems I see. Unless its an objective problem with how the plan text is written relative to the resolution, or a grammatical error in the plan itself, I am probably not down.

-- K: links should be specific to some part of the AFF. definitely in the camp that links premised on the AFF not having done something are not links at all. alternatives seem like they would have to 'solve the aff' in some sense to be competitive, but what that means I am unsure of, since critiques could solve the affirmatives harms in myriad ways that policy alone could not. I think AFFs should get to weigh their impacts. I am more likely to be excited voting NEG for the K with lots of 'link uniqueness' articulations---winning that the AFF meaningfully makes the status quo worse is where a lot of critiques fall flat in my eyes.

-- CP: I dislike lengthy multi-plank advantage counterplans. fan of silly process counterplans and PICs, and am generally of the belief that any counterplan can be read given the team is willing to defend against theory. judge kick seems to be valid if the NEG wins condo is legitimate, and condo itself seems fine, but the more positions/conditional planks we start adding, the more amicable I am to theory about it.

-- DA: the more generic the link/application of the link, the more likely I am to believe AFF link defense. old evidence sucks, and analytics about how world events disprove the DA because [x] thing happened and the link didn't, is compelling to me. do impact calculus! politics DAs trend toward annoying when there is not a substantive link given the resolution, and lots of debate's pseudo political theory [e.g., "winner's win"] seem bunk without lots of corresponding analysis about why it is true for the political scenario of the DA.

-- case: I like 1NCs where case is more than an afterthought/impact defense platter. I am theoretically game for sillier impact turns, however, I dislike old evidence. Wipeout from 2014 isn't my speed, but perhaps new takes or new cards - if they exist - would make me see it and similar positions in a better light.

Public Forum

Cards should be in Word documents preferably. If you have Google Docs I am pretty sure they can be converted (and shared) in Word still, and you should do that if that is the case. No PDFs. Also, learn to use the very helpful organizational tools provided by Verbatim. Broken docs or nav panes result in massive losses in vibe points.

Below is a living, breathing list of words, fake concepts, bad practices etc. that I have heard/seen used in PF rounds I've judged - saying/using/deploying any of the whatevers below is frustrating and probably hampers your chances of success with me in the room.

"delink"
any thing flagged as impact calculus which does not start with "timeframe, magnitude, probability" - idk what a scope is or any of the myriad other pf words out there mean, but all of them seem to be poor abstractions of these core three.
paraphrased evidence
cards with non-existent tags
cards with tags that are a transition word and a comma - "accordingly,...", "thus,..." and anything similar fit the bill
"uplayering"
asking for disclosure at the start time of the round - not disclosing at all - disclosing nonsense documents without tags or citations clearly labelled
failing to send speech documents before speeches start
confusing framing (an addendum to impact weighing) with framework (the procedural question of how a judge should evaluate substantive questions within the debate)

“metaweighing”

I debated in college for Swarthmore, and I have judged public forum a couple of times before. Please weigh clearly and signpost excessively.

Hello! My name is Brendan Collins Jordan (they/she), and I am a history and religion teacher at The Masters School in Dobbs Ferry, NY.

I recognize some teams spread more than others, but keep your delivery clear and paced slow enough that a reasonable judge can still follow and flow what you're saying. I appreciate clearly stated claims, logical arguments, and evidence that is based on current and reliable sources. I will count misrepresentation of your sources against you.

I do not tolerate racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc., in your debating or in your arguments. I also don't appreciate bullying, yelling, or rudeness, so keep that out of the round. Please be kind and respectful of others!

Above all, have fun! I am an argumentation nerd, so I'm excited to see what you have to say and look forward to a good round.

TOP-LEVEL:

1. If you come from a big debate program with a lot of resources and you DO NOT have your cards cut properly, I will drop you immediately with the lowest speaks possible. If I just described you or you even remotely think this may be you, please just strike me. This DOES NOT apply if you are from a smaller debate program or if you are newer to the circuit.

2. Please enjoy your rounds. I understand that debate is a competitive activity and that winning is great, but just relax. I am not saying that you should take this activity as a joke and play around, but just have fun!

For evidence exchange, questions, or anything else, please use this email: timdodebate@gmail.com.

I competed mainly in PF as the second speaker as well as some speech events during high school. Due to limited funding, my high school team mainly competed on the VHSL district level, where I won speaker and team awards.

I graduated from Johns Hopkins University (Class of 2024), where I participated in American Parli, broke, and received speaker awards. I majored in neuroscience on the pre-med track, so if you have any questions about what the pre-med track is like or have any questions about college, please let me know!

Even though I have taken a step back from debate, I judge 10+ tournaments every season, mainly in PF and CX. I am not going to lie to you guys about my skillset because you guys spend so much time preparing your cases, and you all deserve a judge that you know about and want. There are too many judges who are adjudicating and evaluating rounds that they should not be because they are not transparent about their skill levels (like saying that they are a tech judge when they really aren't), which in turn affects you guys.

With that in mind, I am an experienced judge in PF and in Parli, an average judge in CX and LD. Take that however you want.

General:

Please do not give me bare statements that are simple reiterations of what your research says. Remember to always warrant, mechanize, and impact/weigh your arguments.

I do not flow cross-ex. Responses or arguments that you find important and relevant must be in your speeches.

I can, and will, follow speed. However, if you start to speak at a pace that is incomprehensible, I will say ‘clear’ or ‘slow’ up to three times - if you fail to adapt, I will flow what I can and whatever I cannot will be missed.

I will not time you, so please time yourselves. This does not mean that you should use that to your advantage and try to steal extra speech or prep time; don't even think about it and, especially, don't even try it.

I am very strict on debate being inclusive and equitable. If you even, at the slightest, include any rhetoric that is prejudiced or bigoted towards your opponents, you will automatically be given a loss with the lowest speaks possible.

Please do not post-round me in bad faith. My decision never changes, I promise you.

Evidence:

A lot of debaters a) misrepresent evidence, b) do not have their cards cut properly, or c) do all of the above. If this happens in your round, I will not intervene but I am more than happy, even excited, to hear arguments about this.

Evidence analysis is great. Evidence comparison is even more great.

Speech docs must be sent. If asked, analytics must also be sent.

Sending evidence or marked docs should not take more than one minute. If it takes more than one minute, I will run your prep time. This does not apply if there are computer or internet problems.

PF:

I am a tech judge.

I am open to any argument, minus any egregious offenses, that you want to run. Do I believe there are dumb arguments? Yes. Do I believe there are certain arguments that are inherently better to win the round? Yes. However, at the end of the day, I will evaluate you the way you want me to evaluate you.

I thoroughly enjoy and am more than happy to evaluate K and theory rounds; however, if you are abusing these things because you believe that it will give you a competitive edge in the round, then I will not be happy.

You can expect me to have topic knowledge.

You need to over-emphasize your links/mechanisms.

Tagging your responses is important.

I love analytics, especially if they are well executed.

Saying that "you are going to collapse on x argument because it was dropped" and then subsequently doing nothing with it will do you more harm than good.

Saying that "this is frontline" or telling me to "extend this" and then subsequently doing nothing will likewise do you more harm than good. You need to explain why what you are frontlining or extending matters in the round.

I prefer weighing to come out in the 2AC/2NC. At the latest, weighing must be in the 1AR/1NR.

Think about whether or not your arguments make logical sense. If they don't make logical sense to you, I can promise you that they will also not make any logical sense to me.

Also, ask yourself why you are saying what you are saying. This makes your rounds much cleaner because you start to understand the importance of your arguments and how they interact with your opponents' arguments.

The best debaters are going to be comparative; they are going to be able to internalize what happened in the round, think about what your opponents' best arguments are, know what your best arguments are, and how these all compare.

How do you win my ballot? Be good, and do not ever make me do extra work.

CX:

Average CX judge, unlike Sim, who is an exceptional CX judge.

Best at evaluating straight, policy arguments.

Decent at evaluating Ks and other progressive arguments.

If I am your judge, please go a bit slower and over-explain things.

LD:

Average LD judge.

I do not know much about truth-testing, tricks, combo shells, and paradoxes.

If I am your judge, please go a bit slower and over-explain things.

Speaks:

Average speaks: 28.5.

29.5 - 30.0: You impressed me, and I expect you to break.

29.0 - 29.5: You did well, and I believe you can break if you are in a bubble.

27 - 28.9: You performed as expected.

<27: You did something absolutely egregious and I had no qualms docking you.

No speaks theory.

Background - PhD in science and engineering (materials, chemical)

Debate judge for a few years - judged middle school and high school debates

I will flow the round

For me:

tech > truth

clear/structured > compiling/spreading

cards/logic reasoning > buzz words/waving hands

Public speaking > screen reading

Respect to other team > aggressive

Get permission first > say sorry later

I value clear and concise arguments and responses with strong cards or logic reasoning. Compiling/spreading is not encouraged.

If your opponent wins one link in a link chain, then you can not use your impact. Make sure that the links are for your side in order for your impact to stand.

Make sure that your impacts are clearly stated. I do not want to guess what your impact is. Tell me what it is clearly.

If you give me a framework, tell me why the framework should be there. Explain why the framework works in the resolution and why the framework will benefit the round.

I will not view what you say in cross-fire for the actual debate unless the point is brought up in speeches.

In rebuttal, if you are planning to respond, give me clear signposting on what your response is. Don't just repeat your contentions again as that is not responding to what your opponent is saying.

Make sure you extend your contentions throughout the debate. In summary, you should extend your contentions and collapse if you want. I want weighing in summary on the impacts. Tell me why your impact is more important than the opponents' impact.

I value probability > magnitude and scope. If something will not happen, then there is no magnitude or scope. Make sure you prove that your impact has a probable chance.

I want voting issues in final focus to help me understand your main arguments. Tell me what is important in final focus so I know what to judge off of.

i did 4 years of pf (2016-20)

my paradigm is essentially the same as danny cigale's (search his name if the link is broken),

my understanding of the round will trade off with speed. if you plan on spreading send a speech doc to greenicamilla@gmail.com

i attended 1 progressive argumentation lecture at ndf in 2019. that is the extent of my understanding of theory.

background in ir (focused on the middle east), nuclear politics, cold war, and ai -- hard to lie to me on these!!

My name is Lukas Hemmer. I have received judge training, and have participated in 5 tournaments, but please go easy. I am looking for clear and concise arguments delivered slowly and carefully. Treat me like you would a "Lay" judge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.


LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

changed my last name from Kyser to Kyzar, so you might notice a difference on tab vs email.

email chain: davk2300@gmail.com

Paradigm:

If there's an email chain, I'd appreciate being on it, but I'm fine with spreading as long as you're clear. If I cannot understand you, I will say, "clear".

signposting, overviews, and framework are the most important things you can do in a round. please make it extremely clear why your offense is winning, what arguments your opponent has dropped, and why I should value your framework over the other team's. you can even let me know why I should value your evidence over the other teams.

author credibility, date, publisher, etc.

CX is a power struggle. Usually, whoever dominates cross, dominates the round. I will pay attention to CX but I will not base my RFD on it unless you bring it up during your speeches.

Don't do any tricks or run anything frivolous. If I feel like you're running disingenuous arguments, it makes it much harder for me to imagine you as a policymaker.

I do not enjoy 1% solvency arguments, nor do I enjoy "try or die" arguments. decisions made off of fear, desperation, poor planning, etc. do not inspire confidence in me.

I enjoy unique perspectives, but I do not enjoy when a Debate becomes the struggle Olympics.

Don't accuse your opponent of being predatory unless they actually are. if I do see someone being predatory, 9/10 times they've already lost the ballot without your intervention

You can however make the claim that your opponent's case has a myopic view because xyz

I will vote for Topicality. I will vote for Non-Topical Aff's if the team provides a clear method for how the neg is meant to engage in a fair debate.

I will also vote for a non-topical aff if you can convince me that I should prioritize other voters over fairness, e.g education because a grave disservice is being done and debate is functionally bad because of it.

Speaker Points

30 You were one of the best debaters I've ever seen

29: You were excellent and get an A
28: You did a pretty good job but stumbled in a few places
27: You can grow in many areas

I typically give out high 28's and low 29's.

I'm a parent judge. Debaters please talk clearly without rushing to beat the clock. I have some experience judging, but I still prefer that you talk slowly and explain your arguments clearly. I will vote based on a combination of the best arguments and how well you convince me with them.

This is my first year judging PF. This means that you must do your job to adapt to me as a judge, but at the same time I will do my best to follow what you say, take notes and provide feedback. I understrand that you have spent time and effort on it so I take judging very seriously.

You can speak as fast or as slow as you want, however, explain everything that you are saying very clearly. Do not skip any steps in your logical chains – things that are intuitive to you might not seem that way to me.

I will do my best to judge the round fairly as long as you do your best to convince me why you should win. Please speak in a conversational tone – don’t yell – and be as persuasive as you can. Be respectful!!

For the October Topic, I do have a little topical knowledge on it and I've seen unique arguments for both sides!

**Updated October 31, 2023

Hello everyone!

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

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

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

Email: debatejn@gmail.com

ONLINE DEBATE NOTES

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

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

MORE IN DEPTH GENERAL NOTES

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

LD PARADIGM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PF PARADIGM

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

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

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

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

POLICY PARADIGM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am currently a medical student at the University of Miami.

• I debated at the University of Pittsburgh (2019-2022) and Glenbrook North HS (2015-2019). I qualified twice to the TOC, qualified twice to the NDT, and have cleared at the NDT.
• Assume I know nothing about the topic.
• You do you. Debate is a game but how you play it is up to you.
• I have noticed that I tend to make decisions based on the simplest way to resolve a debate. The clearer your flow, and the more you explain the implications of the arguments you are winning, the more likely an argument/claim/warrant will result in a victory.
• Please be entertaining and pretty please, do impact calculus.

Policy Paradigm

Framework and Topicality: I will happily vote on framework arguments. I have been on both sides of this debate. I think a TVA is useful but must be topical. I find myself finding the utility of TVAs mostly to filter content-based arguments about the topic. Non-traditional affirmatives must define how I ought to evaluate solvency and conversely, teams going for topicality and/or framework need to define their impacts in a tangible manner. Too common, I find myself asking about the solvency mechanisms of critical affirmatives and wanting more impact calculus in comparison to FW. Furthermore, fairness can be an impact but I find it more strategic to explain fairness as an internal link to research/argumentative refinement. I think definitions in FW debates are not the most strategic.

Kritiks: With exceptions, I generally evaluate the consequences of plan implementation versus alternative solvency unless an alternative framework for judge evaluation is won. I judge a good amount of debates about the costs/benefits of cap and tend to not prioritize framework arguments as much as other judges. A negative framework is incredibly useful as a way to evaluate links. I enjoy links that simply impact turn to the affirmative. I think more affirmative teams should impact turn links and impacts. When I vote neg, it is generally because of tricks such as impact uniqueness. When I vote aff, it is generally on an impact turn to links or impact calc. Moreover, your alt or model of debate must solve the links you go for. Please do not assume things like "heg is good" or "the game is unethical" but rather provide a reason and impact to these large claims.

Counterplans: Too many advantage counterplans link to the net benefit. I strongly believe it is useful to explain if your net benefit is a yes/no binary question or a sliding scale [ do not just say this but explain how the link to the net benefit makes this framing argument function ]. Perm "do both" means "both things at the same time". If you want it to mean more, then explain it as such.

Theory: You need a counter-interpretation that solves your offense. You need offense. You need impact calc. Please do not go for bad theory arguments if you are winning substance. If conditionality is dropped, you will lose if the argument has a claim, warrant, and implication.

Topicality: I do not like topicality debates. In short, have good evidence and explain debates under your version of the topic looks like. Limits for limits sake is not compelling. I have not judged many debates on this topic, please explain the trajectory of the topic.

Speaker Points: Please start the round on time. The email chain should be sent as soon as the round starts. It's just that easy. Be convincing, be clear, and be technical. Good luck.

Public Forum Paradigm

Please do not spread and explain your arguments as if to a lay audience. I likely have little understanding of your topic and would greatly appreciate simplicity. I do not recommend extending three million link turns to your opponents' claims as that would make the debate quite messy.

From Reed Ven Schenk's paradigm: "I'm fine with being postrounded. The debate that just happened may be static, but the ideas are not. You're allowed to be angry if I'm allowed to be cheeky - deal?"

Put me on the email chain --- reznikdeb8@gmail.com.

If you are interested in pursuing a career in science and/or medicine, I'd be happy to chat.

livingston high school '20 (4 years PF, debated @ TOC + Nats) | university of california, berkeley '24

ishan.saxena@berkeley.edu for the email chain

warrants matter (in all speeches would be ideal)

comparatively weigh

debate however you want

be a good person

I'm a Debate parent, judging in my fourth year. Public Forum and Parli mostly.

Pros

• uniform speed that is intelligible to fully appreciate your views
• RELEVANT evidence-based assertions show me you know what you are talking about and not just filling air time.
• Have fun while learning and improving-this shouldn't be a stressful burden.
• Respectful discourse with your opponents or you will lose points, and my favor.

Cons

• rude condescending tone or mannerisms
• trying to take 5-10 second preps repeatedly
• focusing on cards obsessively or trying to game your opponents instead of just debating
• asking if I'm just a Mom judge
• talking excessively over your opponents in cross
• spreading prevents me from understanding you and giving you credit for your positions

Michael Siller Paradigm

About Me: I am a parent judge on behalf of the Bronx High School of Science. I am not a "technical" judge. I have been a practicing attorney for over 30 years and have a good sense of what makes a persuasive argument and an effective presentation style.

Procedural Preferences: There are a few guidelines I will ask you to follow as you present your case, to allow me to most effectively understand and judge your arguments:

(i) Please identify yourself at the start. I want to make sure I get your names, schools, the side you will be arguing, and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points.

(ii) Please try to avoid speaking too quickly. I prefer that you speak clearly, focus on your most important points, and avoid trying to cram in every argument you can think of. It will be more difficult for me to follow the flow if you are speaking too quickly.

(iii) Mind your time: I will not be judging you by how many seconds you are under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized; on the other hand, you should strive to use up as much of your available time as possible in a meaningful way.

(iv) Be polite. There's an apt maxim from the field of legal ethics: One may disagree without being disagreeable. Attack and criticize your opponents' arguments, not your opponents.

"Theory" arguments. If you intend to make theory arguments that's fine, provided you also engage on the merits of the topic at issue. Debaters will be judged and scored on how they address the assigned topic.

Evaluation Criteria: I will evaluate your presentation based on a combination of how well you: (a) appear to demonstrate a mastery of the substance (about which you may I assume I know far less than you); (b) present your arguments logically, coherently, and persuasively; and (c) refute and weigh your opponents' arguments, as well as on your presentation style (e.g., poise, professionalism, and ability to think on your feet). Concerning thinking on your feet, I pay particular attention to how well you comport yourself in cross-fire.

I wish everyone good luck and look forward to your presentations!

Hello, my name is Ninad Tambe.

Few things to keep in mind:

- I have basic topic knowledge but I would appreciate really clear arguments so that I know at the end of the round without a doubt who I should vote for.

- I can't understand speed, so if anybody goes too fast for me, I reserve the right to shout "CLEAR" or stop taking notes. If you see my pen go up or you see me stop writing, that should be a cue that you're going too fast for me and you've lost me.

- Please don't be rude or overly aggressive, especially in cross - I want to see reasonable and calm crossfires, not the two speakers shouting at each other.

- I appreciate humor, and if you can make me laugh (NOT at the expense of your opponents) I'll award extra speaks.

- If you cannot prove to me why the impact of your case is more important than the opponents', I will have to decide myself.

Good luck to everyone!

Being comparative is a good way to win my ballot. This is meant to be an educational experience for everyone. Have fun & learn something new!

Prounouns: she/her

Triggers: n/a

Email: nmtommarazzo@gmail.com

Paradigm:

I'm a "Flay" judge, but I've been judging since 2014, and I've judged at major tournaments like Harvard, Georgetown, and UK. Don't spread - I flow the entire round (including crossfires) and I want to be able to not only understand your arguments, but note when you are or are not addressing your opponents' arguments. I prefer clear logic, solid evidence, and confident rhetoric.

FOR LD: Arguments are arguments, no matter what form the argument takes (theories, other k's, LARP, traditional, etc). Argumentsmust be justified, and you must persuade me of its importance (aka, the impact, be it to the topic, to the round, to debaters, etc.).DO NOT SPREAD.More-so than in numbers-based debates, losing the thread of a philosophical or idealogical argument will hurt you.

FOR PF: I don't believe that the entirety of a debate is evidence versus evidence, so frameworks, weighing, and actually speaking persuasively are a major plus. While I fully understand debate jargon, don't rely on it as you would with more technical judges. Make me care more about your world than your opponents'.

I prefer PF rounds are NOT theory or K arguments. However, I will always judge based on how you handle your case, and how your opponent handles it.

If the tournament allows spectators, those spectators should not be leaving and coming back repeatedly during the round. It's incredibly distracting for me and may hinder competitors as well.

FOR DIGITAL TOURNAMENTS: Please speak slowly enough that the internet connection can keep up with you. Even with a solid connection, going too quickly results in a blur of noise that makes it difficult to listen for judges and opponents alike.

Additionally: During a digital tournament, please speak up if you cannot hear your opponent. Don't wait until the end of their speech to note that, for you, they were cutting out. It is better to handle the issue with tech time and have the speech given normally than having an off-time recap.

About:

Hi, I’m Asher (he/him). I competed in LD from 2017-2020 and qualified to the TOC twice. Shortened my paradigm for efficiency – feel free to email/message me if you have any questions about my opinions on specific arguments. Other events at bottom

Email: ashertowner@gmail[dot]com

Online Debate:

1. It’s in your best interest to go at 50-65% speed for analytics and 80-90% speed for cards. Slower on tags, conversational pace for short tags that are 1-3 words/plan texts

2. Record your speech locally to send in case there are network/wifi issues. I will not let debaters regive speeches – if you didn’t record it locally I will vote off of what I have on my flow

Judging philosophy:

1. I will vote on anything as long as it is won, not blatantly offensive, and follows the structure of an argument (claim, warrant, and impact). My decisions are always impacted first and foremost by weighing, no matter what style of debate you choose. I value argument quality and development – I’m unlikely to pull the trigger on cheesy, one-line blips and reward debaters that perform quality research and explain their positions well.

2. You must take prep or use CX if you want to ask your opponent what they did/did not read

3. I will not vote on anything which occurred outside of the round (with the exception of disclosure) or use the ballot as a moral referendum on either debater. Genuine safety concerns will be escalated and not decided with a win or a loss.

4. "Insert rehighlighting" - you should be reading the card if you're making a new argument distinct from the one the evidence made when it was initially introduced. Insertions are okay if you're providing context, but you should briefly summarize the insertion. I'm unsure how to enforce this besides being a little annoyed if you go overboard, but if your opponent makes an argument that your insertion practices are toeing the line I'll be inclined to strike them off my flow

Preferences:

1. I think theory can be an invaluable check on abuse and enjoy creative interpretations that pose interesting questions about what debate should look like. The more bland and frivolous the shell the more receptive I am to reasonability. Reasons to reject the team should be contextual to the shell – otherwise rejecting the argument should be able to rectify the abuse. Counterplan theory is best settled on a competition level

2. Kritiks should be able to explain and resolve the harms of the affirmative - the less specific the link arguments, their impact, and the alternative the more likely I am to vote aff on the permutation and plan outweighing. Impact turns are underutilized. 2NR fpiks = new arguments unless clearly indicated earlier in the debate

3. I have no strong ideological predispositions against planless affirmatives. However, in a perfectly even matchup I would likely vote on framework

Evidence ethics:

I will end the round and evaluate whether or not the evidence is objectively distorted: missing text, cut from the middle of a paragraph, or cut/highlighted intentionally to make the opposite argument the author makes (ie minimizing the word “not”). For super tiny violations like powertagging I’d prefer you just read it as a reason to reject the evidence.

Misc:

Be nice to your opponent! Will nuke your speaks if you are too rude, especially if your opponent is a novice or is making a good faith effort to get along

PF stuff:

PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES.

I'm comparatively less involved in this event and so I'll try not to impose my opinions on its conventions. For varsity, I'd prefer both teams share their evidence prior to their speeches, and I dislike paraphrasing as a practice but won't automatically penalize you for it. Speed is fine but not ideal given the norms of the activity. Generally speaking, I would prefer you not read progressive-style arguments given this format's time limitations. Other than that, just weigh.

Hi, I am a parent judge and this is my third time judging public forum

Important notes:

SPEAK SLOWLY. If you spread, I will likely not understand you. Take your time and keep a reasonable pace. Also remember to signpost in Summary and Final Focus so I know what you are referring to (ex: Our two impacts are, this weighs more than the other teams...) since it's easier to understand. Also say specifically when you are collapsing on an argument.

Make sure that i can understand you, do not use too much advanced terminology I would likely not understand. I have not judged this topic before so I am not an expert, so explain thoroughly. Also please try not to use any Kritiks or debate theory as I am not as familiar with those concepts, but if you do please explain them thoroughly.

Respect the other team, don't call names or yell.

In the end it is about having fun :)

Put Me on the Email Chain: Cjaswill23@gmail.com

Experience: I debated in College policy debate team (Louisville WY) at the University of Louisville, went to the quarterfinals of the NDT 2018 , coached and judged high school and college highly competitive teams.

Policy Preferences: Debate is a game that is implicated by the people who play it. Just like any other game rules can be negotiated and agreed upon. Soooooo with that being said, I won't tell you how to play, just make sure I can clearly understand you and the rules you've negotiated(I ran spreading inaccessible arguments but am somewhat trained in evaluating debaters that spread) and I also ask that you are not being disrespectful to any parties involved. If I cannot understand I will stop flowing, what i don't catch I cannot evaluate so make sure that your speed is accessible. With that being said, I don't care what kind of arguments you make, just make sure there is a clear impact calculus, clearly telling me what the voters are/how to write my ballot. Im also queer black woman poet, so those strats often excite me, but will not automatically provide you with a ballot. You also are not limited to those args especially if you don't identify with them in any capacity. I advise you to say how I’m evaluating the debate via Role Of the Judge because I will default to the arguments that I have on my flow and how they "objectively" interact with the arguments of your opponent. I like narratives, but I will default to the line by line if there is not effective weighing. Create a story of what the aff world looks like and the same with the neg. I'm not likely to vote for presumption arguments, it makes the game dull. I think debate is a useful tool for learning despite the game-structure. So teach me something and take my ballot.

Other Forms of Debate: cross-apply above preferences

This is my first time judging a debate tournament, I am a LAY parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly; if I can't hear what you're saying, I won't write it down. Please don't use debate jargon, as I might not understand. Also, please time each other and do not go overtime by more than 10 seconds. Thanks, and have fun!

Oakton '20 (PF, some LD, bit of policy/congress), JHU '25 (APDA, BP). Contact yoondebate@gmail.com for chains, Facebook or nyoon2@jh.edu otherwise. You can ask about decisions, speaks, individual feedback, or anything else - I'm always open to help anyone.

1. If nobody's prep is running, stay unmuted. Your prep starts and stops when you say "start prep" and "stop prep" out loud. Keep track of time - if you go decently over, I'll verbally interrupt your team going forward. I'll verbally notify you when you're out of prep time.
2. Be equitable and respect others, don't use gendered pronouns unless they're explicitly denoted.
3. Don't skip or ask to skip anything. I won't flow over time. Don't hold up your timer/phone/fist when you think someone's time is up.
4. I flow cross. I don't flow off docs. I don't mind "off-time roadmaps" but I won't pay attention, say what your speech will do/is doing (signpost) on-time.
5. If presuming (very rare), I flip a coin, and I don't evaluate arguments saying to presume in other ways.
6. I'll disclose and will disclose speaks on request, average in-division 28, 29.5+ impressed me. No speaks theory.

1. I'm aware of what I know and don't know, don't tell me in your speeches.
2. Arguments are dropped if the next opposing speech doesn't interact, excluding the first two speeches. (This applies to stuff like explicitly conceding something to make a point, or reading a new theory violation, no waiting around.)
3. I ignore "strength of link weighing" saying to prioritize dropped points because they're dropped.
4. Contested (opponent directly addressed that specific claim) or weighed (you applied/compared to another argument) arguments must be extended in summary and final focus to be considered. Others don't have to be (e.g. an impact when the debate's been about links so far, "drop the debater" when both teams go for theory).

I'm a parent judge with no experience judging.

I have limited English proficiency and won't evaluate any progressive arguments.

Please speak at a reasonable pace and flush out arguments with strong warrants and implications.

Weighing makes my job easier.

PLEASE remind me of your side, your name, your team, and the general contents of your speech.

Any racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, etc. will be an auto drop.

Debate well and have fun.