Hello everyone reading this,

If I am your judge, you are in good hands, do not despair.

A few things about me: I'm a debater in high school, and I did public forum for around 4-4.5 years, and now I do policy debate. I competed a lot in public forum and there isn't much else to it. I flow everything and you can classify me as a flow judge(experienced judge). Feel free to ask any questions about me during round or by email if you need to. (Email is at the bottom).

A couple things I like to see:

RESPECT.I can't emphasize enough on how big respect is as a part of debate. If you aren't respectful, I will not give you the win. Now, being aggressive is different from respect. Learn the difference. If both teams are respectful, then both teams will get high speaker points, along with clarity and other things but respect is a big part of it.

CLARITY.I am a flow judge which means I will be flowing all of your rounds, so if you think I'm being distracted just know I'm either looking something up or just flowing. Getting back to the point, just make sure you don't speak too fast to the point where I can't understand you and your opponents can't understand you. If I can't understand you then I don't know what your arguments are, which means I probably won't vote for you.

CLASH. Back when I was a novice, no one had clash, which is just two sides which actually engage in refutation and responding to arguments, and having direct well clash in a debate. Make sure you have this, as the team that initiates clash will have a big boost in my rankings. Make sure that exists.

For a little about arguments that I like to see:

If I'm judging public forum, please do not run critiques, those are just too weird and complicated, no one really understands it and I doubt you have the time to run one effectively.

I like basic, plain arguments, that have a good link and good evidence backing it up. HOWEVER, I am open to other, non-conventional arguments if they make sense and if you are able to explain it in detail to me.

I'm not too big on argument structure, just make sure that you signpost and you tell me exactly where you are very clearly or I will be very lost on my flow and arguments will go where you don't want it to go, which is not on my flow.

I am a big fan of evidence debate, so if you're opponent has biased evidence, or just evidence from Wikipedia, please do go attack it. The same goes for having evidence at all. Please have evidence, and make sure it is valid evidences supported by warrants. I'm not gonna mark you down if you don't but I will mark you up if you do.

As a side note: I am a big fan of humor in debate, as it does make the debate a little more lively and interactive, but know when to use the humor.

EXPLAIN EVERYTHING. Treat me how you would treat a parent judge, as I might not know much about the topic.

If I'm judging LD:

expect that I know nothing about the topic, the format, and the types of arguments you are running, although I may have some knowledge. All rules of debate apply to every event so speed is still okay in LD.

If I'm judging Parli:

No specific rules or boundaries here. I did parli once at a tournament I know the standard rules and whatever. Just don't do anything too crazy and make sure to get to the room on time.

Final inspirational stuff:

If you make any kind of funny reference and I understand it, +1 speaker points. Also, if you are like mid speech or right before a speech and you get nervous, your legs feel hot, you don't wanna speak, just push through. Everyone's been in your position and only learning can come out of it.

If you have any other questions for me, just ask me before the round and I would be happy to answer. You can also email me at nakulbanka2013@gmail.com Have a good day!

ALSO, make sure you ask me questions about this paradigm if there is something I didn't cover.

I am a parent judge, but I will exclusively base my ballot on the flow. I place the greatest emphasis on rebuttals. You must be able to successfully take apart your opponent's case, while simultaneously responding to what they say about your case. I would like your arguments to be firm and clear, without being able to flow on both sides. Overall, I will choose my ballot based on whoever's argument holds the most weight and has held strong throughout the round. I don't like spreading. Make sure that your speaking is clear and easy to follow. Be sure to always be respectful to everyone in the round. Any disrespectful attitude or approach is an automatic loss and low speaks.

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.

Hello!

Here are some pointers to take into account when I judge a round of PF:

• Weighing is a MUST --> must be comparative
• Strengthen links WHILE de-linking your opponents points
• If you bring up a framework, carry it throughout ALL of your speeches
• I do allow off-time roadmaps
• Try not to be TOO repetitive --> I take note of as much as I can so if I catch a strong point, I will take that into account so there isn't a need to spend too much time going over the same point
• Make sure to refute directly --> In other words, try not to beat around the bush
• If you can, I strongly encourage you to front line, although I understand it may be difficult for Pro teams
• Logic AND Evidence

I understand that this may be a LOT to do in a round but try to do as many as possible. In addition, I will usually be judging based off of how well you did for the division you are in.

Good Luck!!!!

Flow. Tech >>> Truth. If you don't say something I can't evaluate it.

Extensions: All pieces of offense needs to be extended in summary and final focus. If it's not in summary, it shouldn't be in final focus. No new responses in second summary or final focuses.

Prog: Theory uplayers substance and Ks. Default to competing interps. Run theory if you want I can understand it. Everything needs to be warranted on theory (explain why no RVIs, when opponents should respond etc).

Speed:Go as fast as you need to just be clear. Slow and clear is fine, fast and clear is fine. Just don't be unclear.

Run any argument you want, how you want it, I'm not going to tell you how to debate.

TEECS '23

add me to the link chain/send me speech docs: veerguda@gmail.com

LARP/Policy>Trad>Everything else

I mostly debated LARP & traditional, so I'm probably a better judge for those, but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily against anything else. As long as you explain it thoroughly, run whatever you want(as long as it's not racist, homophobic, etc.) In terms of Speed, I'm not necessarily the biggest fan of it. At the very least, send me docs and try to slow down on analytics. I don't flow CX, so please please please bring up anything you feel important that happens in CX in your rebuttals so it's on the flow. Be nice and have fun out there!

Info about me (she/her): current 4th-year PF debater at NPHS, 1 year of Congress, typically a FLOW JUDGE.

If you have any specific questions, email me at helucyedu@gmail.com - send speech docs to this email.

General

1. I won't tolerate any sort of discriminatory, rude, or hate speech at any point in the round- speaker points will be docked severely.

2. PLEAASSSEEEE signpost/roadmap. I rely heavily on my flow when casting ballots and giving RFDs so it's super helpful when y'all let me know how you'll be organizing your speech instead of bouncing around back n forth. If you prefer to not give me a roadmap, please just go line by line.

3. Tech>truth, I'm a very flow-heavy judge. I'll buy almost any argument as long as your opponent doesn't sufficiently refute and/or frontline it.

4. Weighing is super important to me, if you emphasize ANYTHING make it your weighing. If you can convince me that your impact is inherently more important than theirs whether or not I believe their impact still stands, YOU WILL WIN THE ROUND.

Online Tournos

For technical issues: you will be given 10 minutes of 'tech time' after any technical issue starts. The timer will start right when the issue comes up. During this 10-minute period, NEITHER TEAM IS ALLOWED TO PREP. Both teams are expected to keep your cameras on, I can see it when you're prepping speeches- this goes for both teams. If your opponent is having a tech issue, please just keep your hands in the frame so I can make sure you're not stealing prep time. After the 10 minutes are over, the result will be automatic forfeiture and the round will end.

Both teams keep your camera on at all times. When you aren't giving your speech, please remain muted.

PF

- Do not spread. I'm fine with speed, on a scale of 1-10 I prefer around a 6-7. If I can't understand it, I can't flow it, so I can't vote on it.

- Extend & collapse. You must extend arguments through EVERY speech, or else I can't flow it through. I prefer to see you collapse on 1 super strong, insignificantly-refuted argument rather than throw out a bunch of weak arguments.

- I do not want to see you treat summary as a 2nd version of rebuttal. Summary is most important for frontlining, line-by-line, and voters. I'm a strong believer that summary is the most important speech of the round. If you forget to mention something in summary, it's not getting voted on.

- I don't flow cross. If something important for the round happens in crossx then mention it in your later speeches.

- My favorite thing ever is when you use FF to essentially write the ballot & RFD for me. Explain to me exactly why I vote for you- this means GIVE ME VOTERS!!! However, make sure everything you say in FF is consistent with summary weighing, everything from FF you want me to vote on must have been in summary.

Parli

- POI's are fine every once in a while, but it's annoying when u do them too much. Don't ask them more than you would like them asked to you.

- Heckling is also annoying; I don't care for it too much but just don't be extra with it. If it becomes excessive, I might dock speaker pooints.

- Do not spread. I'm fine with speed, on a scale of 1-10 I prefer around a 6-7. If I can't understand it, I can't flow it, so I can't vote on it.

LD

Treat me like a lay judge; I have no experience debating in Lincoln Douglas. I've spectated and flowed LD rounds at almost every tournament I go to, but that pretty much sums up all of my experience with LD.

With that being said, here's some random things that may be helpful:

- I don't flow cross. If you want me to vote on something from cross then bring it up again in a later speech.

- I understand that LD is like philosophical and subjective or whatever but I refuse to evaluate a couple things under any circumstance: patriarchy is good, racism is good, homophobia is good, or any other similar edgelord impact turns.

- As compensation for my lack of LD experience, I'll probably give you high speaks. I personally think speaks are pretty arbitrary so I don't really give low speaks anyways. Just don't show indecency and you'll get high speaks.

FOR BOTH LD AND PF: HAVE FUN! Debate is a competition- win, but have fun doing it :)

Basically, I judge by the overall evaluation. I will weigh both style and arguments. I would like you to ask relevant and effective questions during the crossfire and don't waste time by repeating the same question. I weigh both evidence and analytics. I also would like to see you extend your arguments in either your rebuttal or summary speeches. I will flow the round so I can tell if you drop any arguments.

From my perspective, here is the key to winning a round of debate: smooth flow, confident and clear speech, and well-organized arguments supported by both evidence and analytics.

I am a parent Judge.

I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for three years. I am a senior at Vanderbilt University coaching the University School of Nashville's debate team.

I competed at a few national circuit tournaments, but most of my debating was done on the local circuit. I have judged all debate formats but have not competed in all of them. Most of this paradigm relates to PF but in terms of Policy, I am open to hearing every argument and will evaluate based on the flow.

Add me to the email chain at sung.jun.jeon@vanderbilt.edu. If you spread, send a speech doc.

In terms of a PF round, here are a few things that I want to see:

1) You don't have to read direct quotes. I am fine with paraphrasing. However, if I find that you are misconstruing your evidence to make your claim, then I won't vote for that specific argument. Your speaks probably will go down as well if your opponents call you out for misconstruing evidence.

2) If you are speaking second, make sure to frontline any offense. I think it is strategic to frontline everything but at the minimum frontline turns.

3) I won't flow cross-fire, but if something major happens, make sure to address it in the next speech.

4) When extending cards and offense in the latter half of the round, make sure that you explain the warranting behind it.

5) If evidence is called, make sure to produce it in a timely manner. Also, I will call for evidence if you tell me to call for evidence.

6) Don't just dump responses. Explain what your evidence indicates and how this piece of evidence is significant in responding to your opponent's case.

7) I like to see you start weighing in rebuttal. I think it is strategic to set up the weighing earlier in the round and then carry that through summary and final focus.

How I vote:

If you want me to vote on a certain argument, it should be in both summary and final focus. Your argument should be explained in a clear manner and your impacts should be extended. Weighing your argument and impacts against your opponent's argument and impacts will make your path to the ballot easier. I will try not to intervene, but please weigh arguments comparatively to make my job easier as a judge. If not, I will have to decide which arguments are more important.

If there is no offense generated from each side (highly unlikely), then I will default to the first speaking team. If you say things that are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or are extremely rude in any way, I will drop you and give you low speaks. The debate should be civil and debaters should be respectful.

Please do not postround me. I do encourage you to ask questions about the round and why I voted the way I did. I am always looking for feedback to improve my judging.

If you have any additional questions, let me know.

As a judge, I appreciate the clarity of the points made. The debaters should articulate their points logically and use evidence effectively. I appreciate the debaters taking their time to convey their arguments instead of rushing it through. I also appreciate the debaters who can adapt to unexpected situations or counterarguments. I like to see the debates based on facts instead of hypothetical situation.

Hello, I'm Arya Mirbaha.

Email: aryamirbaha@gmail.com.

Experience: Current Varsity Debater, Coaching Novice Debate, former Open, Novice, and JV Debater, Over 7 years involved in debate. I have also done speech for multiple years.

Preferences:

• Respect - Please be respectful at all times with your opponents. Do not be the individual to interrupt your opponents constantly. There is a line between argumentation and disrespect, and you should NEVER cross that line.
• Spreading - At the Novice Level, spreading (going extremely fast through your speech) should be limited. I do not want to see you going too fast where your opponents cannot understand what you are saying. You should ideally check with your opponent prior to the round starting regarding spreading. If your opponent and I cannot make up what you're saying, there's no point of saying it!
• Cross Examination - Cross is a great time to pick at your opponents arguments and extend your own while doing that. I listen to Cross and will take notes on Cross, so ensure that you do not forget about what was brought up in Cross as it could hurt you later on in the debate!
• Time Limits - Time limits are there to be followed. I give debaters a 15 second grace period from the time their speech ends. After the 15 seconds, I will not flow anything you say. For Cross, if a question has been asked right before the time limit runs out, it is expected that you respond to it, even if you surpass the time limit doing so - I am okay with that.
• Prep Time - Prep Time is there to be used! I have seen a lot of teams not use Prep Time, and it is a waste! I will time Prep so that there is no misunderstanding between both teams, although you are more than welcome to time for your own organization.
• Counter Plans - I do not accept any Counter Plans, especially at the Novice Level. If you do run one, and your opponent calls you out on it, I will side with your Opponent and disregard any information regarding your Counter Plan from my flow.
• Evidence - All your contentions/points should have evidence that is cited correctly. I will only ask for evidence if what you are saying seems too good to be true. If your opponent asks for evidence, you should be able to provide it to them in a timely manner.
• Speaking - This is your speech - be loud, be clear, emphasize important numbers or words! This will all help me and your opponents understand your contentions!
• Standard/Framework - I think it is a great idea to have framework, and I want to see why your framework should be used through the debate, and how your contentions relate to it!
• Impacts - I want unique and quantifiable impacts! I want to see what will happen as a result of your contention, and I want that to be clear.
• Weighing - I want both teams to try and weigh the debate, especially in Final Focus. I want to see where I should vote and why.
• Disclosure - I will disclose results at the end of rounds, unless it is against tournament rules. I will also give feedback to all competitors, including areas where they can improve, and areas where they did well.

Summary of Preferences - Make sure you respect everyone at all times. Do your best to ensure everyone understands what you're saying, and ask your opponents if they're ok with you spreading. Utilize Cross Examination as I will be listening and flowing it. Ensure you stay within your time limits during all speeches and crossfire. I will time Prep Time, and make sure you use it to your advantage! I do not allow Counter Plans. Make sure you have evidence! Frameworks or Standards are always encouraged. I want unique and quantifiable impacts. I also want to see where and why I should vote.

At the end of the day, this is your debate! Remember to have fun, learn from the debate, and do your best! If you have any questions, please let me know either by emailing me, or by asking me during the debate.

im a sophomore at horace mann. i've debated pf for 4 years and have 2 bids to TOC.

add me to the chain: emilysdebateemail@gmail.com.

make the round clean and easy to evaluate. if you're not a decent person, i will stop the round, drop you, and give you the worst possible speaks.

how I evaluate: i'll look at weighing/framing first, then evaluate the best link into said weighing. that being said, weighing only matters if you're winning the link into your impact.

General Stuff:

- if you're going over 250 wpm please send a speech doc

- preflow before the round start time or i will be very sad :(

- Prereq > link in > probability > mag > scope > timeframe > SOL is my default order for evaluating weighing, metaweigh if you want me to prefer a specific mechanism over another

- I'm not a stickler for extensions -- they can be blippy and short as long as it's clear that you're going for the argument.

- Defense isNOT sticky. If you want me to evaluate the defense you must extend it.

- No offense in turns if you don't extend weighing

- If you don't collapse I will be very sad and cap your speaks at a 28.

- 2nd rbtl must frontline or it's conceded

Prog:

I don't think prog belongs in PF. I don't have much experience debating prog, so run it at your own risk.

Speaks:

- Speaks will be based on content, strategy, and speaking

- Automatic 30 if you pay me $5 (or more) before rounds. Cash only.

I am a parent/lay judge with no real experience. I cannot judge fast rounds when I don't understand or comprehend what you are saying. LD jargon will only confuse me so keep it clear and simple. Keep the volume up and the speed very low. Do not be rude to your opponent as it will cause me to take off speaker points. Enjoy the occasion and don't be afraid to repeat things to me.

Hi! I'm Rudri Soni (pronouns: she/her).

I’m a HS Varsity debater.

Willing to hear anything (except racist, sexist, homophobic, and otherwise discriminatory behavior).

I like clean debate and good weighing (who doesn’t). Tech > truth.

Flowing speed is average. If you’re close to or are spreading, I’ll try my best to flow, but I’ll probably miss a lot.

I’m ok with evaluating theory and kritiks. I prefer substantive debates and don't run theory just because you think you're losing.

If you want an email chain/speech doc, add me at rudrisoni@gmail.com

I know this is pretty short, so if you have any questions, just ask me before the round! Any and all questions are welcome!!

+1.0 speaks if you can insert "rizz" into one of your speeches. If you do this, I'll verbally confirm the reference with you at the end of the round before the RFD; if I don't, make sure to point it out to me!

she/her

"topshelf"

I debated on the NatCirc every year in HS under Canyon Crest with various partners

Post-rounding is encouraged -- I love yapping but understand that's not for everyone

Include me in email chains: michisynn@gmail.com

Any racist / homophobic / sexist, etc etc argument will earn you a loss and the lowest speaks I can possibly give at the tournament. This should go without saying.

TLDR

• I vote on what's in summary and FF
• I'm fine with speed but PLEASE keep things organized or else I will miss things aka SIGNPOST
• winning your offense + winning weighing = winning the round ????
• warrant all of your arguments ESPECIALLY your internal links well
• I generally give high speaks (28.0 +)
• I am bad at judging prog but will if I have to
• All of the suggestions below are based on my personal debate style. I would never punish a debater for not reading my paradigm or debating exactly like me. Just please have fun and learn something!

ROUND LOGISTICS

• Keep evidence exchanges quick. Set up an email chain before round. Yes, I want to be included.
• No skipping Grand Cross for prep because a) you should be budgeting your prep wisely and b) grand cross is funny
• For online debate, I am generally very sympathetic towards technical difficulties, so PLEASE do not take advantage of the format to steal prep / generally commit abuses
• Send docs if reading 250 WPM + (normally I judge MS so I will be confused if you do this LOL)

CONSTRUCTIVE

• Make your internal links crystal clear, especially if you are terminalizing to nuke war or extinction
• Send a doc if you are speaking 250+ WPM
• I am completely fine with paraphrasing, as long as you can provide the cut card to check back for abuse

REBUTTAL

• Signpost clearly
• Number responses if possible
• Implicate responses well rather than just reading debate jargon
• 2nd rebuttal must frontline (respond to the 1st rebuttal's attacks on your case)
• Let me know when you're going to their case if you are a 2nd rebuttal speaker

SUMMARY

• You must cover in some way, shape, or form: offense, defense, frontlining, weighing. I don't care in what order you do this, but these components must be in summary.
• High level weighing with good warranting is very strategic
• Please extend your entire link, internal link, impact (and uniqueness if that's important to the topic)
• On their case, 2 implicated responses >>> 4 unimplicated responses. Also, defense is not sticky.

FINAL FOCUS

• Collapse in this speech if you haven't done so already
• In my opinion, this speech should be heavy on big picture analysis and weighing, but as long as you cover their case, your case, and weighing you should be good.

PROG

• My opinions on this are very brief because I have limited experience with prog.
• Framing --> Run it well. Provide well researched and well thought out warranting as to why your impacts are more important, not just "education," "we brought it up first," "discourse"

• Theory --> No friv theory PLEASE. Logical analytical responses >>>> brain dead circuit responses (like the theory baiting response). Theory comes before substance b/c it's prefiat so I would suggest narrowing the debate to theory after the constructives (or whenever it's brought up)

• Ks --> I strongly dislike topical Ks because the alts are vague, but feel free to run one and I will up you if you win on the flow. I don't have strong feelings one way or another about nontopical Ks. Again, I will up you if you win on the flow.
• Regardless of what kind of K you are reading, please make the lit accessible during the round. If someone asks you about any of the "isms" in cross, please provide a basic explanation rather than spouting off buzz words. Debate is ultimately an educational activity.
• Also, please provide TWs if you are reading graphic depictions of violence and give the opposing team a document with the offensive / violent language blurred out. Warning people ahead of time is in my opinion never a bad thing and allows people in round to mentally prepare for what they are about to hear. You can still read your advocacy -- I would not want to limit or censor debaters.

• Tricks / High Theory / Friv Theory / anything strange and peculiar --> I am not the judge to run this on. Read this on Justin Wang and Derek Song :3

Ask me any questions before the round and please reach out if there were issues in the round / at the tournament! This activity is really important to me, and it's critical that debaters feel safe and confident.

Please speak clearly and make sure Summary and final focus are consistent.

I'm a high school debater and have competed in PF and Congress on the National Circuit for 4+ years

add me to your email chain/doc/whatever ur using to share evi: deeksha.vaidyanathan@gmail.com

tech over truth

weighing >>>> (super super important to me, if you don't weigh you'll probably lose)

speed is perfectly fine with me, but make sure that you don't abuse it (don't speak super fast just bc you don't have good args and so you don't want ur opponents to understand a word of what ur saying, bc I still will!)

frontline all responses (even if they're bad, just say it's bad and I'll probably agree with you)

don't use "they have no evidence" as a response to an arg (especially if they do have evi)

I don't flow card names so please don't just extend the author w/o telling me what they say

i've never debated ld before and have minimal experience with k's and theory, so if you're planning on running either, make sure you explain it well

make me laugh and be creative and i'll give you higher speaks :)

good luck and have funn, that's what debate is for!

3 years pf with bc academy in vancouver (broke at the prestigious mstoc - dropped in doubles)

jonnyspecter08@gmail.com for the chain

tl;dr

tech > truth

dont be offended if im not constantly flowing my topic knowledge for february is pretty decent

cams on please :)

general

sorta okay with speed but anything over 230wpm ill need a doc

signpost.

frontline anything ur going for in 2nd rebuttal and any offense from 1st rebuttal

i hate case extension in 1st rebuttal i wont flow it, don't need to hear what your partner said 8 mins ago

warranted ev> warranted analysis> unwarranted ev> bs analysis

collapse please

i wont flow blippy extensions thru make extensions clear (threshold for that is lower for ms/novice)

i've voted on turns before and find myself doing so quite often so feel free to go for them but please weigh them

weigh comparatively and metaweigh if you can

I dont flow card names so pls dont just extend the author w/o telling me what they say

presume first if no offense comes out of ff

Framework

unwarranted frameworks arent frameworks they're just bad weighing. default util

the framework debate should be happening every subsequent speech after the framework is read unless someone tells me otherwise (though i dont love the idea of respond in next constructive - won't affect me if you read warrants for it tho)

the framework extensions has to come with it's warrants to be evaluated, restating it does nothing

if the other side links in, dont just drop framework: try to weigh the links (unless both links are pretty clean/pretty bad)

im open to pre-fiat frameworks, but just explain your warrants well. tell me why i value the discourse you promote and how picking you up helps (which ig you could implicate on a post-fiat level somehow)

Evidence

So down for an evidence challenge. As a debater myself i often dont fully realize an evidence violation is happening until the round just ended so if you wanna challenge as im tryna type up an rfd go for it.

Generally speaking, why are you clipping or bsing ev? If it's not what the author says or if the ev just isnt there dont lie, someone will find out somehow.

auto 20 L if i find you with bad evidence ethics. this excludes general paraphrasing (even tho i think it's a bad ethic). only if you horribly misconstrue the author will i drop u (please run a paraphrasing shell if you catch someone paraphrasing).

More often than not, i won't call for cards unless anyone asks me too. Again, i'm willing to intervene even after round if someone tells me to look at something and i find some sort of evidence violation going on.

dont send us to a weird link that wants us to download something or whatever, find a way to give the direct link.

Prog

read any shell u want theory is fine, i find most frivolous shells funny.

personally, paraphrasing/disclo both bad. will still vote on disclo/round reports tho. default competing interps/no rvi's unless told otherwise

just cus you win the rvi debate doesn't mean you win theory in general. if they read a ci that's still offense for them. my understanding for rvis is if the team responding to theory wins defense and wins yes rvis, they win. even if they lose rvis they can still win off of the ci so don't just engage with the rvi debate and call it a day.

if content isn't graphic, i lean towards no trigger warning theory, but this shouldn't effect the way i evaluate it, i just think it's an easy way out for teams to not deal with certain sensitive args they dont have prepped out.

probably not your best judge for the k, feel free to try. i have a very basic understanding of cap, security, and colonialism lit (probably least comfortable with colonialism).

i prefer and am more comfortable with hearing topical negs, i think id really mishandle identity.

no tricks ill leave and drop (idek what they are so it wont be beneficial for you in any way)

Other

make cross funny and chill i like to be entertained otherwise ill be on my phone. 30 speaks if u make me laugh.

usually start at 28.5 and work around there.

it's ok to cuss just dont target it at me or ur opponents.