For email chains, please use kevin@civis.org

Debate background: I debated both LD and policy in high school and both CEDA and NDT in college. I also coached high school debate while in college and coached college debate while in graduate school. I have also directed several tournaments of a public forum nature for embassies in Washington, DC. The last two years I have judged for my daughter’s middle school team.

My ballot is either an endorsement or rejection of the affirmative based on its (a) anticipated outcomes and (b) philosophical underpinnings. If the affirmative is not (reasonably) topical, then I lack jurisdiction to evaluate it and must vote negative.

I have a very strong preference for the probability of impacts over the magnitude of impacts. Most impact scenarios that we advocate in policy debate are laughably absurd. Everybody knows this. With the proper analytical and evidentiary presses, I am very willing to assign "zero risk of a link" to many advantages and disadvantages. The "political capital" disadvantage is often particularly susceptible to such presses.

I also find affirmative solvency to often be lacking. Once again, with the proper analytical and evidentiary presses, I am very willing to vote negative on "zero solvency."

I am very fond of counterplans but find that I lean affirmative on most theoretical issues. I find "counterplan solves better" a very compelling argument and is in itself the net benefit.

As I noted above, the philosophical underpinnings of the plan are also an important consideration. An on-point criticism that engages with the plan can be a very compelling argument to me. I am less interested in some kind of magical "alternative" that wishes away all the cares in the world.

Langley '26 | PF for two years

Add me to the email chain: chunconnor@gmail.com (he/him)

While I come from the incredibly and atrociously lay Virginia circuit, I have a decent amount of experience on the natcirc. I dislike much of the local debate. Why is cutting cards banned? Why are summary speeches still two minutes?? Is it really impossible to find any judge who at least has some idea of what debate is??? It should be pretty obvious which circuit I prefer...

Hard Prefs

A quick excerpt from The 3NR- There are not enough people yelling clear or requiring their students be clear. Yes kids today don’t flow because they just look at the speech document- but guess why they do that? Because no one can understand what the other team is saying [...] even when I say “clear” people totally ignore it.

Here is what it means when a judge says “clear”: I cannot understand what you are saying, therefore I cannot count any of the arguments you are making. Without arguments you will probably lose.

What kids hear: “LOUDER” “1% slower please” “Can you enunciate for like 5 seconds and then go back to mumbling?”

-

That being said, there are a few (pretty obvious) things that are absolutely set in stone, so you should definitely read this if you want a quick summary of my preferences. These are more lenient in novice/jv rounds (excluding respect)

1. Be respectful. Any bigotry or blatant rudeness will get you a quick L20.

2. Speed is fine- be coherent. I hold a high value in clarity because realistically if I can't understand you, I can't flow your arguments. Send a doc if you're going fast, but even then I prefer not to use it.

3. Obviously keep track of your own time. I will also be timing and stop flowing once the timer hits zero, give or take 3~ish seconds.

4. Evidence exchanges have a tendency to take way too long. If it takes you more than 30 seconds to grab a card your speaks will suffer. I'd prefer it if you sent cut cards before speeches or at the very least before constructive.

5. Theory is fine, but I shouldn't be trusted to evaluate K's very well.

Soft(er) Prefs

Top level I default util, but have ran lots of SV and Extinction ow's cases. Reading carded frameworks in first summary is iffy and reading it in second summary is way too late unless you're responding to your opponents' framing. I prefer not to vote on pre-fiat "discourse" arguments- the idea that I should vote for you because you just read a framework doesn't make a ton of sense.

Make my job easy by explaining your clear path to the ballot. Collapse on your case, collapse on their case. Debate is quality > quantity so rather than going for five unweighed turns it makes way more sense to go for one with good weighing and a strong link chain.

Weigh. Lots of round come down to whoever is winning weighing. Do lots of it, but have good warranting and explanations if you want it to be a voter. Probability weighing is just another way of explaining why you are winning your link and is often just new defense in the summary speeches. If you go up in summary and say "we OW on probability because their argument about nuclear war is stopped by MAD," that's new defense I won't vote on.

***I don't know why so many tech judges can't control their emotions- debate is a game, meant to be fun and educational. One round isn't the difference between life and death, so I'll usually try to be chill.

hi, I'm Michaela Frey (she/her)
email me w questions, advice, or anything: michaelafrey02@gmail.com

- Tabula rasa
- Theory is ok. K is ok if you're not like being awful and inaccessible. I know the lit for fem and Orientalism stuff well. don't expect like the most beautiful prog decision ever sorry
- Don't be annoying
- Stop spreading if ur genuinely incomprehensible

flow, 2 years Ms debate & 2 years hs pf debate

I haven't done much research on the topic, so I expect debaters to explain their evidence + link

Middle School Debate

Some Important Points I'm going to be judging on:

1st:

Speech: Good, fluent speech with eye contact

Time: I'm not too concerned about going over time, just make sure to not get over by too much

2nd:

Responding to opponent's arguments with reasonable responses - Please Signpost (Telling me what point your responding to)

frontline your argument

3rd:

Compare the two arguments, explain to me why your impact is more important

Crystalizing the Debate for me (Finding the main points of clash in the debate)

Tell me why you won the debate (Weighing and flat out just saying it.)

Experience: competing on natcirc in hs (pf), also 1 yr of ms parli debate at lms

Tell me before round starts if you have any questions about my paradigm

• Fine w/ speed, just speak clearly and take into account your opponents
• have good contextualization
• be dominant and persuasive
• No excessive POIs.. if you do, get ready to say bye bye to your speaks
• please please please weigh everything youre going for (Tell me why your argument is more important than your opponent's)
• extend anything you want me to evaluate in 3rd speech (summarize your reasonings)
• terminalize your impacts ("40% gdp" is not an impact)
• please signpost (say what youre responding to or where youre gonna go next in your speech) clearly, be organized when responding!
• be respectful,

Don't do bad stuff - Anything that could have an -ist at the end of it is obviously not ok and I will consider dropping you based on my judgement of the round.

Finally, make these rounds interesting. Debate is a game, have fun with it.

Extra speaks if you bring me food !! (auto +1) also extra speaks if you say objection!!! then point and laugh theatrically with no elaboration at all

If you have any questions about my RFD(reason for decision) tell me after round and I will do my best to be helpful

I am a parent judge. I like people that talk slowly - don't rush through your info. I like cross-fire but I need to be able to hear both sides. I value refitrs and weighs equally. I weigh a combination of anecdotal, logical and data-driven evidence.

hey, i'm harrison (he/him), and i debate for Walt Whitman High School in PF.

this is my middle school parli paradigm

general:

i'll let y'all know straight up that i've never debated middle school parli

i'll try my best to vote the way i would vote in a PF round (more on that in the next section)

i've looked over the rules and stuff; i'm down to keep time. apparently time starts on your first word, so i'll go with that

i'll cut you off when your time is up. if you're finishing a sentence, finish it quickly (it's fine if you go a few seconds over)

you don't have to call me judge; i'm probably only 3 or so years older than you

i think heckling is pretty funny, but don't be obnoxious about it

i don't fully understand POI's, but i guess you can ask them in the first and second speeches (please no POI's in the final speech)

tech > truth??? i don't know exactly what that means for middle school debate, but if you concede something, it'll be evaluated as true and you can't respond to the thing you conceded later in the round.

if any of my paradigm is confusing, ask me before round

voting stuff and preferences:

i'm not going to be a stickler about extensions, but it would really help if you get up in the final speech and tell me, "we're going for our contention x on..."

i'll probably vote for the team that weighs their impacts the best (i know it's obvious, but tell me why 1 million people going into poverty is worse than 10 people going into poverty)

i'm flowing the round - let me know where to flow. in other words, signpost ("in response to their contention on x, they say this, but we say...")

i'll check and see if i'm allowed to disclose after the round. the general rules say i am, but it sometimes varies tournament to tournament. i'll give y'all a quick rfd on why i voted a particular way.

you can ask me questions after the round if you want; it's all about learning!

speaker points:

not sure how i'm supposed to give out speaks, but you'll probably get good ones

yes, it will be at least slightly based on how you speak and how you present stuff, but i'm mostly concerned with strategy

a few ways to up your speaks:

• signposting

• good weighing

• funny heckling (don't heckle against a new kid please)

• just being generally nice and fun

PF

safety>tech>truth

TLDR

I flow, i can evaluate tech, prog, k's, wtv. I've ran topical and non-topical k's, friv, etc. still though I pref substance

make it easy to evaluate---give me comparative weighing and collapse on good arguments not many arguments (not saying don't go for more than one arg or smth just quality over quantity)

bigotry is an L20

be fast I don't want to be sitting in the back for 2 minutes waiting for an ev exchange to happen

prefs

spreading send speech docs, if you're going to do the same gargling marbles pf spreading most kids do TELL ME WHEN YOU'RE GOING OFF THE DOC OR MARK IT IN THE DOC

no new args in back half, please collapse

explicate kicks---no judge kick and you have to tell me how conceding a piece of defense kicks smth

weighing prefs

as a general matter first thing I look for is a pre req with timeframe, you should do good analysis on these things as always. but i'll look to wtv weighing mech you tell me to look at first

probability is normally fake, if you have the same impact and have good comparatives go for it but i don't just buy "this argument is not probable so you shouldn't vote for it." that's just link defense. only time you could go for probability and make some sense would be if your arg is conceded and there is ink on theirs but my threshold for responding to weighing like that is low.

i deeply dislike intervening actors weighing the way most people do it in pf (eg timeframe first cus longer impacts have more intervening actors or sv first cus nobody looks to sv). it’s not something you can’t win off of, nor do i think it’s a fundamentally bad way to weigh. rather, the issue is how high schoolers do it by just saying “oh there’s intervening actors so their problem gets solved” with no explanation of the mechanics. it’s basically a form of defense that for some reason we have allowed to be argued without any explanation or warranting—do better

Prog

I can eval theory

don't read disclo or other theory on kids who don't know how to answer it that's just sad

threshold for good answers to theory is pretty low

for k's I can generally eval k's, i'm familiar with some lit but assume I'm not.

I mainly flow/watch and read decisions from NDT/CEDA K rounds, all that really means is that my standards for k is going to be pretty high and that a lot of the crap k debate that goes on in pf isn't something I want to judge. if you're going to read a k you should have a genuine good understanding of how to do it.

you should have good alts and have solvency cards unless you have a reason why it's uneeded and you read it in round

tell me how to eval the k vs k or policy or wtv, eg "weigh the impacts of the plan against the k"

DO THE LINE BY LINE THIS GOES FOR BOTH SIDES

when it comes to non-topical i'm good to evaluate them but when answering t-fw:

I enjoy creative counterinterps

you should do the work to answer whether procedural or structural issues come first

I enjoy creative T and I really hope you have a good idea what you're doing when going for T

other prefs

pre-fiat "discourse" is silly, you don't get the ballot just for bringing up a certain problem especially if you're losing the rest of the flow. why am I voting for the neg who read a fw when the aff proved they're policy is better than the neg for those groups?

i presume first

extend whatever you're going for, this rlly shouldn't have to be said...

feel free to postround

dml good paradigm

good reads: https://the3nr.com/2012/10/16/kids-today-2/#more-2747

"1 good card >X bad ones if X is ANY NUMBER EVER."

https://the3nr.com/2011/11/28/kids-today-part-deux/

https://the3nr.com/2012/10/08/common-mistakes/

"Pay attention for your partner. Make sure they don’t drop things, answer arguments in the speech doc that weren’t read etc"

if you remind your partner of something during their speech it's not a matter for how I eval your speaks, I think it's a normal that should be in PF more

some thoughts (will add on as time goes on):

reflexive fiat is interesting, go for it if you want and i’ll do my best to evaluate it

I will evaluate topical k’s even when there’s a perfcon. eg: reading sec k after reading a bunch of escalation scenarios. why? the role of the neg is essentially to test the policies of the aff. if there is an alt when i vote neg on the k i’m not endorsing the neg but rather, if they’re winning the k, i’m endorsing the alt which solves securitization or wins them enough offense under the fw and it at least proves that the aff is bad. impacts of the k do not become non unique as that would mean that every impact of the k is non unique no matter what (which is an argument you of course can make but a perfcon will not be evaluated as defense by me unless you do a lot of work). subject to change depending on rounds ofc but just be warned if you don’t have perfcon stuff prepped you will have to do more work.

MSPDP

Tech > truth

Anything goes. I don't care about truth value, the only thing that matters is how an argument is handled within the debate. Extend everything, if it is not in the third speech I will not vote off it, even if it could have won you the round.

Pace: Speed is fine, talk as fast as you want but I need to be able to understand it. Also if you decide to do what is basically an original oratory speech or some emotional speech instead of a debate speech, then I seriously don't care. I only care about your substance, it might help your speaker points, but it will not be able to win you the debate.

Order: order doesn't really matter, I'll assume offense defense weighing for the rebuttal and third speech, but I'll only flow like that if you don't read out an order at the start of your speech, otherwise just say how you are going to do the order and I'll flow that.

Strat: If something get's dropped by another team it is cold conceded, you can kick args, any type of prog strategies you want to use are fine. I'm more accustomed to tech debate debate so you will get more speaker points for jargon and such that speeds up the pace of the debate.

Frameworks: Only read a framework if it actually does something, if you just say I frame this debate around (the resolution almost word for word) or anything along those lines I will deduct speaker points. Your framework should be a way to pre-emptively weigh this debate for me, not just a way to isolate where the impacts of your arguments will be. If you are going to limit the debate to a specific place or thing, then you need to provide a reason why. Don't just say "we frame this debate around the United States," tell me why I should prefer the debate to be weighed around the united states and not globally.

Presumption: I will generally presume neg just based off aff burden, but if presume aff warrants are read I will evaluate those.

Respect is top priority. If you don't respect your opponents you will lose the round.

Pronouns she/her

Preferences:

Speed is fine but make sure what you're saying is clear; enunciate your words

Eye contact is important, but I understand if you can't do so, as we are in a virtual setting

It's recommended that you keep your own time- I will keep time as well

Please roadmap your speeches, as I will be flowing. Make it clear to me what you are talking about

Weighing is crucial and will be a huge part of my decision as to who won or lost

I will give personal feedback to every speaker.

Use up all or as much as possible of your time- it tells me you have a lot to say and adds to your case

Obviously, be respectful to both your teammates and your opponents. No interrupting others

Things that will help me decide the win- weighing, impacts, and rebuttals.

May the odds ever be in your favor :)