Judge Lorain Clawson
She/Her or They/Them
Freshman at Davidson College

Hello, good people!

A few things to know about me

1.) I debated all four years of high school! I mostly competed in Policy Debate (my main category all four years), but I also dabbled in Congressional Debate and Public Forum Debate. I am best versed in Policy and like to keep my realm there.

2.) I also was a speech kid for three years in high school! I often double entered at tournaments and enjoy some good POI.

3.) I struggle with speed-- in any form of debate. I can handle it, but I willrequire you to send me your files via an email chain this way. If not, I will only flow what I hear. If you don't have clear tag lines... Then please work on making them!

Things I won't tolerate
This is the most important section of my paradigm, so please read it!

1.) I will not tolerate racially motivated statements at any time. If you read evidence that is racially motivated, I expect you to preface these matters before round or to choose a different piece of evidence. This also means I will not tolerate calling a team racist for reading off evidence when the team rejects the narrative personally. Any behavior of such will be reported to tabroom. Please do not define participants via their arguments and please be respectful.

2.) I will not tolerate sexist or misogynistic actions or statements made by the participant. If your evidence has these connotations, I expect you to preface these matters before round or to choose a different piece of evidence. This also means I will not tolerate calling a team sexist or misogynistic for reading off charged evidence when the team rejects the narrative personally. Any behavior of such will be reported to tabroom. Please do not define participants via their arguments and please be respectful.

3.) I will not tolerate cuss words being used in my rooms. I understand that you are a high schooler and I am a college kid, but we will not be using this language. It is not conducive with a semi-professional environment and I do not see it as a way of adding to an argument in any way. Do not use profanity. If you do, I will deduct points from your speaker points.

4.) You will not talk over one another in a debate. If you need to cut someone else in cross, please do so politely and with grace. Most importantly, if you are in a partnered debate, do not correct or interrupt your partner in way that is disrespectful. I will dock points if this persists throughout the round.

Policy Debate Judging Paradigm

Judge Type: Policy-Maker and/or Tabula Rasa.
- You drop an argument, you lose the argument. This includes your case!
- If you are extremely disrespectful in rounds, you will lose and be reported to tab.

Evaluating Topicality: Traditional; Needs Standards, Violation, and Impact of it. I see Topicality as a vital part of Policy Debate, but it is also a time-suck. Extratopicality arguments are normally a wash for me.

Evaluating Inherency: I believe in Structural and Attitudinal Inherency. Either way, you need an inherent barrier for me to buy your plan. Validity arguments are welcomed for Attitudinal Inherency.

Evaluating Solvency: I weigh solvency very heavily. I have seen teams win on Solvency and will vote accordingly. Remember that Magnitude and Time-Frame should be discussed when Solvency is brought up.

Evaluating DAs: Outline your Link, Brink, Impact, and Uniqueness. I accept Generic DAs, but have UQ arguments ready to go on both sides.

Evaluating CPs: Your CP must be nontopical, it must be competitive, and avoid the DAs. I will largely compare in policy making-mode, but feel free to expand CPs to include more if you want.

Evaluating Ks: Tell me what type of a K it is, the Links of the K, and why I should buy the K over an argument or plan. Please only run a K if you know what you are getting into. Outline your K with detail so that everyone understands. Do not use buzzwords and expect people to know what they mean.

Rebuttals: I will not accept new evidence in rebuttals. Please use these to summarize your round and make final, quick arguments. Remember to flow your case through these as well. Use this time to overview the round!

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OVERVIEW

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

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

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

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

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

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

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

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

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

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

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

That said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hi im ahmad, current pf debater for college prep er. for the chain: aelassaad@college-prep.org

quals: did some stuff won some stuff

if ur a novice: speak clearly and at your own speed. line-by-line in first rebuttal, frontline and line-by-line in second rebuttal, collapse and weigh well in summary and and final focus. make sound arguments and make it clear what i should vote on. most importantly have fun!

tech>>>>>>truth. i prefer substance rounds. weigh, warrant, and speak as fast as u want. extend args with warrants, links, and impacts through summary and ff. weigh links and turns and pretty much everything else. i'm willing to vote off of anything (i mean anything) as long as ur winning it, just don't be offensive or discriminatory.

lim as tech→∞ (1/tech) = truth

all the normal stuff, im cool with tag-team cross, flex prep, skipping grand, and pretty much anything as long as both teams agree. i give high speaks so just debate ur debate.

impact defense is lowk underrated and under-used, some of these impact scenarios r getting a little ridicululous.

im fine judging theory, k's, tricks, but ur gonna have to explain ur args pretty well. prolly don't run any phil or high theory on me ill prolly be lost.

good luck and have fun! :)

My views align with Arnav Ratna.

this guy is kinda based

tl;dr standard fyo flow, i will evaluate the round based on offense that is extended and warranted fully, and ideally comparatively weighed so i don’t have to intervene

about me

hi, i’m daniel! i use any pronouns. please add me to the email chain at dgarepis@uw.edu and if you’d like, check out my youtube channel at youtube.com/@danielgarepisholland. if you are a novice debater, please skip down to the novice section at the bottom.

pf for two years in middle school, two years of trad debate as palo alto gc. one year on the national circuit as palo alto gs. i got a couple bids and went to gold toc my senior year with my partner yash shetty, we also finaled ca states.

basics

speak as fast as you want (if you send a speech doc)

wear whatever you want

i will always give a verbal rfd and feedback/q and a if i can/have time

good analytics = good cards (and analytics >>>>> miscut cards)
extend clearly and collapse strategically on a few pieces of offense

do good weighing in the back half
gon't misgender people or be discriminatory, reserve the right to drop you for it
ideally disclose on the wiki or at the very least send cut cards in the email chain (not share a google doc!)
i will probably blisten to cross but extend in speech. if we skip grand both teams get 1m of prep

evidence

- paraphrase if you’d like, but don’t misconstrue. have cut cards and ideally send them in the doc.

- don’t steal prep when calling for cards, and give cards promptly when they’re called for

- ideally send a doc for constructive and rebuttal if possible. +0.2 if you do (doesn’t apply to novices)

back half

- first summary MUST extend offense (re-explain uniqueness, link chain and impact as well as frontlining) and respond to turns and terminal defense, ideally mitigatory defense as well if you’re going for that argument. ideally you should be collapsing to make this easier for you, you still need to respond to turns if you want to kick out

- i’m not the harshest stickler on extensions, it can be short — spend more time frontlining and weighing than extending. don’t spend all of summary repeating your case!!

- weighing should be done as early as possible. this can be changed with warranting, but sv > extinction > short-circuit > link-in > magnitude > timeframe (unless you give a good reason why) > probability. as annie chen said, "'nuke war is improbable' is not weighing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it's a response w no warrant." don't give made up jargon and be comparative.

- in principle, defense is sticky. if someone drops terminal defense but extends the argument, say, into 2nd rebuttal, the argument is done. however, ideally you extend your defense in case i miss it on the flow.

theory

- default to competing interps no rvis. i sorta think rvis are dumb so i have a sorta high threshold to vote off an rvi but it's certainly possible

- i think disclosing and not paraphrasing are good norms so i have a low threshold for them. i have a medium threshold for round reports and other random shells. i have a low threshold for new k affs bad]

- in terms of cws. arguments like poverty or feminism do NOT need a content warning opt out form and there's an argument that doing this is actually bad. non-graphic discussions of sexual violence should have at least a content warning before you begin reading case. graphic descriptions of violence (which i've never actually heard read in round) MUST have an anonymous opt-out form, there's a chance i'll drop you regardless of theory

- another note on content warnings. after events at toc last year, if i find out that you read trafficking or some other possibly triggering argument and only provide an opt out form in front of flows but not lays, i reserve the right to still vote for the shell and tank your speaks

t

- yea ill vote off it

- t shell can be in paragraph form it's fine

k

- i'm by no means an expert at evaluating ks, but please run the argument

- i have a decent amount of experience with k affs, i have a decent understanding of the ideas and lit involved, and i enjoy hearing arguments that challenge normative assumptions

- i'm more comfortable evaluating cap, security, set col, etc. and identity ks than dense postmodernist lit. please warrant and explain rotb well if you want me to vote for the k aff, especially for a non-topical k

1. This is my paradigm; I will explain how I approach judging in a FAQ format. Hopefully, it's clear. If you have any questions, email me: khumalothulani.r@gmail.com

1. What is my experience level?

Here are my judging qualifications:

2022: Implicit Bias - Project Implicit, USA

2022: Cultural Competency course - National Speech and Debate Association, USA

2022: Adjudicating Speech and Debate – National Speech and Debate Association, USA

2022: Protecting Students from Abuse - US Centre for Safesport, USA

You can find my certificates here (Google Drive):

I have been judging for two years now, since 2022, and have judged about 22 tournaments (I have no idea how many flights but probably hundreds lol). I have experience in most formats: LD, PF, WSD, BP, AP, Congress, SPAR, Impromptu, Policy, and even the rare ones like Big Questions and Extemporaneous. I have some experience in oratory speeches like DUO. Yes and many rare debates (for example, one time I did a radio debate where the speakers were performing as radio announcers, giving local news, sports, etc, with 1950-type voices-- it was a pretty cool experience :)).

2 2. What are my preferences as they relate to your rate of delivery and use of jargon or technical language?

I pretty much understand complex English words. Having studied engineering in college, it's pretty much a given that I understand most of the stuff and words that may be deemed complicated. However, debate is an Art of Convincing and Converting, so don't try to use too much jargon like a lawyer (or a surgeon lol), as it might end up confusing your opponents and me.

Rate of Delivery: Any delivery pacing is welcome. Generally, I prefer a medium pace; a slow pace is okay, too, if you can explain your contentions adequately in the given time. Medium or conversational pacing gets the point across really well. When it comes to fast pace, don't speak in a monotonous way like you are reading..(approach your speech as if you are trying to convince me to follow your case), and don't rush too much: take your time; it's your moment, be free. I don't have any difficulties understanding fast-paced deliveries; however, during the speech, you must factor in the time for me to process the information you say. But remember, it is not only me; your opponents must also understand what you are saying. This means, you really don't need to have too many contentions to be convincing (Quality over quantity).

33. How do I take notes during the round?

I am a writer, and there is no stopping my pen. First, you have to know that during your contentions, I basically write down all your points, examples, and details. I keep my notes detailed so that it's easy to recall and give a balanced assessment. However, I highlight your major contentions so that I get an appreciation of your overall message. This is important in that, usually during questioning, there usually are nuanced questions coming from the other side relating to minor arguments, such as an example that was not stressed upon. Picking all that up is important so that I don’t forget or get surprised when someone asks a question on a minor point.

4. Do I value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Are there certain delivery styles that are more persuasive to me?

Arguments and style are both important to me. Generally, I give Arguments 70% and style 30%. When I rate every debate, there is an argumentative section and a performative section that is essentially style and delivery. For me to give you the round, you have to provide me with convincing and logical arguments supported by examples/exhibitions (argument). Then there is style: After every debate, I always emphasise how important a structured speech is. There must be a flow to your case. Start by saying something out of the box to raise my interest (Give an exciting hook, show me how smart you are); after you introduce the topic, state your major contentions, then explain them, giving evidence. Don’t give too much proof because you need time to explain to me, as if I am a layman, what it all means and the impacts of an action. Then, as you conclude, give a summary (remind me of the journey of the speech). This delivery style is tried and tested, However, if you think you have your own style that will convince me, go for it. You can trust me when I say to you that I pay a lot of attention to detail.

45. What are the specific criteria I consider when assessing a debate?

1. Clarity: outline your key contentions early on in the debate, and use these to link your argumentation for consistency and clear logical flow.

2. Rebuttal: be genuine with engaging matters from the other side. Make strategic concessions while showing me how your side solves the problems you illuminate from the other side. Avoid making claims without justifying why they are valid or essential to the debate and at what point they engage with the other teams' arguments.

3. Conclusions: When deciding on a winner, I use the key clashes that came out in the debate regarding the strength of weighing and justification. This means, as debaters, you need to prove to me why you win certain clashes and why those clashes are the most important in the debate. That is to say, mechanise each of your claims (give multiple reasons to support them) as you make them make it easier to weigh clashes at the end of the debate.

4. Coherency. Make sure your delivery is coherent. The perk of writing stuff down is you can catch a lot of mistakes, so make sure everything tallies up.

56. If you have judged before, how would I describe the arguments I found most persuasive in previous debate rounds?

Essentially, the most compelling arguments are the most well-explained, and the impacts of those arguments are well-explained and logical. Try not to brush things off, manage your time wisely, and don’t come with a lot of contentions…3 or 4 are usually enough (depending on the debate format); explain well, give proofs, and give impacts.

67. What expectations do you have for debaters’ in-round conduct?

In the round, everyone is EQUAL, and everyone is free to express themselves. It’s a safe space for everyone. Be kind to one another, and that means no bullying or targeting of any sort.

78. Feedback. I will give verbal feedback if the tournament allows, disclosing who has won and why. I will also write feedback on Tabroom for every individual. My job is to make sure that you learn from the debate experience and take something positive.

89. Time: I prefer that the speakers have time clocks with them (this won't lose you marks, lol). I prefer the round to flow naturally without my continual interruption, interjecting here and there (for example, you: “Judge Ready?”— Me: “Ready”) if there is something to be said.

Cheers!

"Tech over truth. I do not share the sensibilities of judges who proclaim to be technical and then carve out an exception for death good, wipeout, or planless affirmatives. The only situation in which I will not vote on an argument is when forced to by the Tabroom.

This applies to everything. You do not get a blank check because your opponents’ arguments are “trolls” or “science fiction.” Whether something could be “read identically on a previous topic” has no bearing on whether it rejoins the affirmative. It is my experience and firm belief that the vast majority of judges who describe arguments in such a fashion are dangerously incapable of answering them.

With that in mind, I will decide the debate based on the flow and nothing else."

My email: ashutosh.komali@gmail.com, add me to any speech or card doc.

A bit about me, I am a freshman in college (Rose-Hulman Institute of Tech.) and have competed in many events consistently over 4 years, mainly in Public Forum debate where I was the AK PF captain. Other events I did were Congressional Debate, Big Questions and World Schools Debate for Ardrey Kell High School/Carolina West District. Hint: World Schools is my favorite event and is the best event, so even though I am an experienced judge, a well warranted "lay" debate is the best strategy for me rather than devoting the round to a fast flow debate

Please feel free to ask any questions about my paradigm before the round starts.

TLDR; I hate prog, treat me like a shitty lay judge even if I can evaluate your argumentation, don’t make me to extra work to figure out who won, pls have fun.

Most importantly, I know how stressful a debate round can get, I know the anxiety that debaters get before round. I can't really do anything about this, but just know that I want you to just have fun, that's what debate should be, and I'll try my best to make the environment lighthearted and fun. There is nothing better than a cohesive debate community and becoming friends with people you see consistently at tournaments is just top tier, so while you should do your best and take things seriously, don't be so tough on yourself. This is an extremely difficult activity, and while I am your judge, I'm not going to "judge" you based on your debate abilities, I will just do my best to help you improve upon yourself. Anyone who knows me in this activity knows that what I valued most in debate was trying to help others.

General PF Stuff:

Tech>Truth in almost any circumstance as long as it's not offensive or absolutely absurd (impacting out to 1 trillion humans)

Prog Debate: While everything I say below is true, I am a substance judge and will always prefer a very lay and trad round. I don't really care how you feel about this, but I hate progressive rounds, and though I won't drop you for it, I'm unlikely to prefer the team that reads it, especially if it is being spread. Reading theory against novices is lame and don't do it to teams just looking for good experience in a tournament. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t read it on teams that are being absurdly exclusionary, but don’t read prog just to read prog.

Theory/T: I'm not the most experienced with it but I get the gist of it. Theory doesn't have to be answered in 2nd case if they are trying to keep the round trad. You must ask your opponents if they are okay with theory, just a general question as theory debaters won't yet know what potential abuse is made in the round, the only exception to run theory if opponents disagree is if a TW is necessary.

Kritik/K's: Fine, not my expertise but if you explain it to me like I was born yesterday, then it will be fine. Try to keep it in the realm of topical K's but do as you will.

Strike me if you don't like my policy about progressive args.

Speaker Points: I won't go below 28, unless you are being excessively aggressive and/or rude or say anything offensive or discriminatory.

Don't read 30 speaks theory, please don't skew the round for this, you have a better chance of 30 speaks without this.

These all apply only to the speaker who did them:

• Make an avatar(both avatar franchises included) reference: +0.5
• Make a Stranger Things reference: +1

Speech docs: I hope this is obvious from what I just said, but don't try to spread, especially if you mess up your speaking a lot, but if you do spread, send speech doc.

I generally will not ask for a speech doc because I am fairly fine with flowing unless you spread very fast, which I considered being 250 or 260+ wpm.

Frameworks: I default cost-benefit analysis/utilitarianism, but you can have your own FW. Provide warranting for why this is the FW of the round tho, or else I will think it is very weak. Second case can always have a counter FW or just respond in rebuttal.

Mavericks: Everything the same except I'll give mav's 5 minutes of prep

Speech Analysis:

Case: Have clear warranting, it can be obscure or unique, but it should make sense. Case comprising of cut cards is recommended for your own usefulness, I am fine with anything paraphrased, but if a card is miscut or paraphrased incorrectly, I will drop it from my flow. Note: this can only happen if opponents call cards and address cards and I follow up with the card.

1st Rebuttal: Pre-emptive frontlines are nice, you should know what your job is, go top down on their case and respond to it to the best of your ability, addressing cross questions can help as well.

2nd Rebuttal: Make sure you frontline here, I won't evaluate it in second summary, feels abusive to me. Respond to their case obviously.

Don't read cards only, make analytical responses, these often have the best warranting throughout the round so they are useful, and when reading any carded response, make implications to why they clash with your opponents claims. Don't say something then not tell me why it it important.

Weighing is always welcome here.

1st Summary: Make sure you frontline your case well, only place for you to frontline. If you want me to evaluate something in my decision, you need to include it here. I advise you to collapse on your case, don't need to if opponents didn't do very well on responding. Make sure you weigh here.

2nd Summary: Again, no new frontlining that wasn't in rebuttal. Should address first summary. Nothing really different from first summary.

NO NEW RESPONSES, I get annoyed by this. This should be obvious, but no new arguments, I won't evaluate them.

If new arguments are made in summary and you respond to them just to be on the safe side then that's fine but I generally won't encourage it as I drop new args(unless its frontlining in first summary) and a time suck.

1st Final Focus: I agree that this is some disadvantage since you don't get the last word, but this is a big reason you should pre-emptively respond to their 2nd FF. Again extend things you want me to evaluate. Weigh.

2nd FF: Take advantage of this, you have the last word in the round. Don't do anything unfair, but if the round went very clash(AKA went to backlining and beyond), new analysis of the arguments are welcome here, this goes for first FF too. Weigh.

Your Final Focus should practically write the RFD for me, even if you are losing hard, don't give up and make a convincing final statement as to why you should win.

WEIGHING: To me, weighing and impact calc is very important, as even if you concede to all of your opponents links, you can still win off of weighing impacts with a clear link into them with your arguments. Magnitude is often the default in rounds, but differentiate your weighing from your opponents by using other weighing mechanisms too. Meta-weighing is often not included in many rounds I watch but it is a great tool, helps me in my decision and is always welcome.

Although it is convenient for the debaters, I don't believe in sticky defense, just don't do it. Extend.

I may call for cards once the round is over for me to clear up any suspicious evidence or cards that are challenged during the round.

Finally and probably most important, please make an implication of any argument that you extend in the back half of the round that has clash on both sides(hopefully a lot of them exist) because without implications I can't easily tell who wins an argument if they don't interact with the other side.

Hi I give up on having an actual paradigm. I did pf for like three years and some speech do whatever u want.

I like meme cases if u manage to connect ur case to the previous topic I'll give u a 30 i'm dead serious.

Email chain: yads139@gmail.com

I have 4 years of pf debate experience. My pronouns are he/him.

Please send a speech doc (with cut evidence, not just rhetoric) if possible.

General:

in round:

• I'll listen to cross; I don't understand why most tech judges don't; it's part of the activity for a reason. With that being said, I'll listen, but only vote off of what is said if you implicate it in a speech.
• defenseis sticky
• offense is not sticky
• extensions should have at minimum uniqueness, link and impacts; internal link extensions are nice too
• all args that you want me to vote on must be extended properly
• I won't evaluate args that are not extended through every speech (except first rebuttal)
• no new offense past rebuttals
• don't be abusive with new responses
• I understand the desire to do a bunch of prep and be a doc bot, but please interact with your opps case on a ev/warrant basis. It makes the debates more fun, makes weighing easier, and makes it so that I don't have to intervene.

weighing:

• Please don't say "we outweigh on magnitude, scope, probability." you need a comparative warrant for each mechanism.

• Weighing should start latest in summary; first rebuttal should be weighing.
• There should be no new weighing in final focus.
• Do not use probability weighing as a trojan horse to sneak in a new response.
• Prereqs/link-ins are a great way to make a debate fun.

Progressive arguments:

Run at your own risk! I'll vote off of theory/T, and I can understand some k's, but if yours is convoluted and/or spread I cannot guarantee I will. If you have a well constructed (and well-meaning) k or theory shell read it :)

Public Forum specifics:

• First speakers should ideally start weighing out of first rebuttal. Second speakers should weigh in second rebuttal (even if minimally).
• Please collapse on 1-2 args in summary. I have a high threshold for blippy arguments.
• Do not read the claim of a turn in rebuttal and expect to attach a warrant later on. I will only evaluate turns that are warranted, implicated and weighed out of rebuttal.
• You must go for the same arguments in summary/final focus.

LD specifics:

• Do not LD spread. I will not be able to understand what you are saying.
• Please talk slowly and clearly. Quality of arguments matters more than the quantity.
• I understand minimal circuit ld concepts. Be aware that reading a type of argument that is present in LD and PF may not translate to me.

I'm a flow judge :D. I've debated public forum for 3 years, so I'm familiar with debate jargon and the format in general. You pretty much have free reign over the debate, although I would prefer a few things:

PF:

• Always, always, always signpost.
• I understand needing to talk faster to get all of your argument in, but do not spread. Spreading is generally unnecessary in PF, and makes things messy.
• Impact calculus is very important; I believe that at the end of the day, debates are won based on the more pertinent impact.

And of course, ad hominem arguments are never welcome. You should never be rude or discriminatory to your opponents under any circumstances. If I see this happening in any form, it will be reflected with very low speaker points. And as for the cheesy closing statement, debate is meant to be fun, so let's keep it that way :)

Email chain (yes): talk to me before round.

I debated (2020-2023), judged (many rounds), and currently coach Lincoln-Douglas. I prefer not to disclose personal information online beyond what might be immediately helpful for the competitor, so feel free to talk to me before the round if you have any further questions!

Overview

• Call me “judge” in-round, thanks

• Wear a mask if the tournament says you have to. I will vote where you tell me to, but I will not shake your hand.

• Be ethical with speech times, prep time, and evidence. At the end of each speech, you are granted a “grace period” to finish your sentence, not to make a whole new argument. You are granted 4 minutes of prep (LD). Here is the NSDA Evidence Guide. Don’t steal prep by taking forever to find a card. Cheating is not cute or quirky, and I will not hesitate to punish to the full extent as outlined by CHSSA/NSDA rules.

• Be mindful of potential triggers and sensitive topics and DO NOT be offensive (racist, homophobic, sexist, the list goes on).

Traditional LD

I will not hesitate to drop anyone who chooses to make the round inaccessible (spreading out the opponent) or engage in other debate practices that would not be understandable to a reasonable person. This is non-negotiable.

• Keep your off-time roadmap to less than 15 words. Please. Just tell me where to flow.

• There’s a fine line between being cheeky and being annoying during cross. Feel free to do the former, not the latter, I can tell the difference. If you’re confused, ask.

• An argument comprises a claim, warrant, and impact, not just a claim.

• Write the ballot for me – tell me why you win.

Circuit LD

• Send a speech doc and go slower than you usually do – it’s been a while and listening to spreading has always made me very tired. If I miss something, it’s nice to have the doc to reference. Slow down especially on signposting, taglines, and analytics.

• I would prefer if the round remained related to resolution – things like friv theory and Ks unrelated to the debate are a bit harder for me to vote on, though possible.

• Avoid using heavy progressive debate jargon

Other Events

Treat me like I’m a parent judge. Prioritize clarity over speed, and explain the argument and reasoning to me. Assume I’m not familiar with the topic lit. Please don’t be rude in crossfire.

Have fun and good luck!

Debated at Park City. Qualified for toc and nats in PF. I now debate in parli for UCLA and coach privately.

BASICS

warrant, collapse, implicate, weigh, extend consistently and don't be offensive/rude. Add me to the email chain and send cases before construct speeches: zwatkins@g.ucla.edu

SPEED

Go as fast as you want, and I’ll flow it. If you’re unclear, I’ll say clear twice and then put my pen down. After that, what I can follow is entirely based on your clarity.

EXTENSIONS

I have a high threshold for extensions. I expect you to extend the internal links to the argument as well as the impact. In other words, just tell me how you get from point A to C before you extend the impact. If you don’t, I’ll still evaluate the arg but I’ll be less inclined to vote for it.

Defense is sticky until it’s frontlined

FRONT LINING

respond to offensive responses ie turns before you collapse, and terminal defense before you access weighing.

WEIGHING

Tell me WHY the extended argument matters more than your opponents. If your opponents give me a different mechanism than you to prefer their argument, explain why your mechanism should be evaluated first (**metaweighing**).

Don’t introduce new weighing in second FF unless your opponents made a critical weighing concession in GCX. The only other exception to that rule is when neither team has weighed up until the second FF(Don't do this probably).

TECH > TRUTH

If you didn't say it in the round, don't expect me to evaluate it regardless of how "true" the argument may be. That said, use common sense and have good judgment. If you say something incorrect, it won't influence my decision, but I will call you out after the round.

PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENTS

I do prefer substance in PF; however, feel free to read them. My default is reasonability. If you want me to approach these args from a different standpoint, tell me.

IMPLICATE!

The link to an argument matters but if you don't tell me HOW it fits in the round, I won't know what to do with it. So, tell me what argument serves as turns/terminal defense, why, and what that means for you/your opponents in the round. I love a good narrative lol.

she/her – add me to the email chain or any google docs if u want audrey.hx.yang@gmail.com

I’m experienced and i disclose

Tech with warrants > truth. Lay appeal goes to speaks

Don’t be -ist or rude or you’ll get dropped

Prog: read it if you really want to, just know I will not be a good evaluator. if i get super confused, i will vote on substance. no rvis

• Definitely do not read friv prog on novices or to get out of debating sv arguments, just be better at debate

Fw: Don't read stupid fw like “vote for the team with the most important impacts” or “vote for the team that does a cost benefit analysis”. if you read fw there should be warranting

Speed: i'm okay with some speed, not okay with spreading ur opponents out of the round

Cross

• I don't flow it. PLS have fun and be sarcastic and funny. Don't take it too seriously

• Concessions in cross are overrated, i'm not going to vote for you just because your opponents worded a response slightly badly

Speech stuff:

• I don’t flow card names so if you say “extend jones” idk what you are talking about. Tell me what the card says

• Don’t read a 1410928492018 hour long otrm. Just tell me where you’re starting and SIGNPOST.

• signpost through all speeches it will help me immensely. numbering responses = ❤️

• Going back to your own case in first rebuttal is dumb, i won’t flow anything

• Sticky defense does not exist lol yall gotta extend

• warrant everything out for me and implicate - for both offense AND defense. no, i will not vote off of a two word turn with zero warranting just because “tHeY drOPpeD thiS”. Same thing for frontlines and ev clash – tell me why to prefer you and why that matters.

• If no one weighs for me then I’ll intervene and be very sad (probability > mag > scope generally, this is likely to change if you're running a sv or racism arg)

for any questions after the round just email me :)