I am a parent judge and I mostly judge PF but am familiar with debate structure and have been judging for a while. Please keep your own time.

I will flow everything in round except cross, so if something significant happens bring it up in the round and I will add it to my flow. Off time roadmaps are helpful, but please keep it brief.

I sometimes think the evidence read is weak or unrelated but if your opponent doesn’t challenge it, I likely won’t either. If evidence conflicts I will typically believe whichever one is more more convincing to a reasonable individual.

Two of the most important things to me as a judge are dropped arguments and impacts.

Please be nice, everyone is doing their best, if you are rude you will lose points. I appreciate kindness to your competitors especially in novice. It doesn’t matter to me if you sit or stand, nor does it matter how you dress. Be comfortable and have fun.

Good luck :)

First time parent judge. Please speak clearly and avoid going at a fast pace.

I will be flowing so please organize your thoughts and say where you are on the flow (state the contention that you are responding to or defending).

Please explain your arguments thoroughly.

Please keep track of your time (speaking & prep).

All the best!!

This is the first time I will be judging the event. Here are some things I would like to see from speakers in a debate:

• Clarity and Organization:

• How well debaters organize their arguments. A well-structured speech is easier to follow and more persuasive.

• Content and Substance:

• Depth and quality of the arguments presented. I am looking for evidence, examples, logical reasoning, and relevance of the content to the resolution or topic at hand.

• Crossfire Skills:

• How well debaters handle crossfire questions?

• Rebuttal and Clash:

• The effectiveness of debaters' rebuttals. Are the speakers addressing key points raised by the opposing team? Are the speakers engaging directly with their opponents' arguments?

• Use of Evidence:

• The quality and relevance of the evidence presented. Strong evidence supports persuasive arguments.

• Speaker Style and Delivery:

• Effective use of tone, pace, and emphasis can enhance their overall impact. Non-verbal communication, such as eye contact and body language.

• Teamwork:

• How well does each team member contribute to the overall case?

• Time Management:

• Speakers must manage their time effectively. Are the speakers using their allotted time efficiently and prioritizing key arguments?

• Clash and Rebuttal Strategies:

• Turning arguments, extending arguments, or introducing new evidence in the later speeches.

• Adaptability:

• How well speakers adapt to the arguments presented by the opposing team during the course of the debate.

• Respect and Sportsmanship:

• Speakers' behavior during the round. Respectful communication and adherence to the rules are important.

Good luck! I look forward to hearing and seeing you in action.

I am a lay judge. Don't be nervous to correct me on debate lingo or debate rules. I do not always disclose, but I usually will if requested. If you are rude or disrespectful to your opponents, I will drop you.

Speak clearly. If you are talking as fast as possible, I’m not going to understand a word you’re saying and that’s not going to get you any points even if what you are saying is good. I need to be able to understand what you are saying. Speak at an appropriate pace and you’ll be good.

The most important thing is to talk slow enough, so I can understand your argument. If you talk too fast, I will stop taking notes.

I will judge on tech > truth. No spreading, k's, or theory. Disclose any triggers before the round starts.

Please sign post. Ethics are really important, if you are rude to your opponent - I will give you a default loss.

Unless either team provides a framework, I will default to a cost benefit analysis.

Frequent judge of PF. 3rd year coach of HS Congress, HS BQ, and MS Congress. Studying finance @ ASU

VPF Paradigm

*If email chain is set up add: tomelibil@gmail.com - I won't read off of your speech doc though, so go slow enough for me to normally flow.

90% flow 10% lay. Progressive stuff is ok, but I have very little experience with it, so it needs to be crystal clear. Speech orders make my flow better. The stronger link chain, from claim all the way to impact, wins the round. If they're equal strength I go off weighing. Make extensions and weighing clear! I always give an RFD time permitting.

JV/Novice PF & BQ Paradigm

50% flow 50% lay. Sitting/standing doesn't matter. Preferably look at either me or your flow/computer when talking, not your opponent. If you give me a "brief off time road map" and it's longer than 15 seconds, you will lose speaks. A passionate debate is ok, but genuine anger/insults aren't. Time your own speeches and prep. Please don't state your name and the topic at the start of every speech. Generally I evaluate novices more Truth>Tech except for in late out rounds. If you notice anything that puts into question the fairness of the round, alert me at the soonest reasonable moment. If anything immediately threatens your safety, alert me immediately. I typically disclose.

Congress Paradigm

I judge congress equally as both a speech and debate event. Uniqueness is hugely important, and the time in the round you speak must match the speech you give. All the things on presentation are important - volume, stature, passion, speed and pausing, and enunciation. Generally prefer late round speeches to early round.

PO's: Don't make errors, be fast, and be clear. Follow standard proceedings and control the chamber whilst being respectful. Cut off people effectively and on time. I've never dropped a PO but never given a 1 either.

hello everyone! i hope everyone is enjoying the tournament so far. i competed in pf for four years (on and off) on the arizona circuit and currently debate in college so i have a fair bit of experience. i have a few specific preferences:

EVIDENCE: i do flow the round, and want to see you bring up evidence in every speech in order to have it counted for you (lenience for rebuttal). this ends up being a problem for people most often in the summary, leave yourself time for extensions! quantifiable impacts are going to win over abstract impacts almost every time.

SIGNPOSTING: good signposting will always assist you in the round. i like to hear at the very least what contention you're on, and ideally mentions of the opponent's card names as you respond to them.

CROSSFIRE: i don't listen to it lol. i might pay attention sometimes, but i'll never be writing anything down. if anything important happens, whether or not i was watching, bring it up in the next speech.

TIME: if you go overtime, feel free to finish your sentence but i won't be flowing anything new. if you list a new card or new argumentation, i'll take my hands off the keyboard so you know i didn't get it.

SPEED: i prefer conversational, but i can deal with slightly faster speeds. please avoid spreading if you can though! if you start losing me, i'll make an "X" with my hands.

if you're going to do an email chain for the round put me on there! charlybisson@gmail.com

most importantly be respectful to each other! any kind of racism, sexism, homophobia, or other bigotry is an immediate drop and discussion with your coach.

feel free to ask any clarifying questions before the round, and best of luck :)

I've been judging various forms of speech and debate events on local, state and national levels since 2013. Head coach of St. John's School since 2020.

I have no event specific expectations on what should happen, I prefer everything to be spelled out in round. I do not like intervening.

Speaker points are a tie-breaker, so I am a bit more conservative with them, but that doesn't mean I'll tank your points unless you're unclear, have frequent speech errors, go over time, or if you're rude. Expect an average 27.5-29.5 range in PF/LD/CX and a range of 68-72 in Worlds and a 3-5 range in Congress. Perfect speaks reserved for those who truly exemplify great public speaking skills. Rudeness can also be a cause for a team losing.

Don't assume I know anything, explain as if you were talking to someone non-specialized in whatever subject matter you're speaking on.

Ask before round any further questions you might have.

-----

For WSD

I will be following the conventions and norms that asks us to:

• think about these things on a more holistic approach;
• nuance our argumentation and engage on the comparative;
• think that the principle level argumentation is key and that the practical should make sense in approaching the principle;
• not engage on tricky arguments or cherry picked examples;
• debate the heart of the motion and not conditionally proposing or opposing (that we are debating the full resolution);
• reward those that lean into their arguments and side;
• preference thinking about the motions on a global scale when applicable.

he/him
I prefer clear and slow speaking, please stay organized.
speaks are stupid, but I LOVE an iced matcha from starbs!
Love > Hate

science / math tie ins will earn you speaks

Hi, I’m Frederick and I debated in both Public Forum and Congress for three years. State champ PF, went to nats in Congress.

Email: fchangho@asu.edu

Overall, pretty standard tech.

The easiest way to win my ballot is by having clear warranting throughout the debate. Evidence is great and all, but please have reasoning for WHY that evidence matters in the round. You need to be able to explain the logical progression in your link chains every time you mention your arguments. Don’t say NYT 19 and move on and expect me to go along with it.

Weigh. But make sure your link chain is intact and you’ve made clear extensions through the round.

Signposting is good. Organization is important.

If you get a concession in cross, bring it up in speech.

When possible, frontline in rebuttals.

No prep time for card reading is okay, but don’t take too long to pull up a card for your opponent to read. If there are card issues that you want me to look at, tell me to call for them too in speech. I will choose to view them at my discretion.

NO SPREADING.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponents. If I need to intervene b/c someone’s consistently talking over another in cross, you’ll be on pretty thin ice. Watch your own time. Watch your opponents’ time. Don’t talk during others’ speeches or make any rude gestures.

Off-time roadmaps are okay, but you don’t need to tell me what you’re doing in your first rebuttal for example.

Clash. Address opp’s arguments and explain to me how yours interact with theirs + why yours are better. Simple way to win.

PF-specific

PF’s intent is to be accessible to the average Joe. Don’t do anything that hinders that.

Generally tech>truth, but please don’t pull up with some nuke war argument that vaguely relates or anything else that requires a significantly unlikely chain of events.

I would rather vote for a well-warranted argument without an impact over a poorly-warranted one with a good impact.

Key voters are great for staying organized, but if you choose to do line-by-line just remember to signpost exceptionally well.

I don’t pay attention during cross. Unless something blatantly wrong happens.

LD-specific

Before I ever judged LD, I had only ever seen 3 LD debates. I’ll be able to follow along with your arguments, but progressive will be relatively difficult for me to evaluate in the scope of the round unless your warranting is pristine (which it should be anyway). Disads, CPs make the most sense to me. Topicality shells and K’s, somewhat. High risk, low reward if you run theory.

I am a parent judge. I have previously judged PF debates in a few tournaments.

• Please speak clearly, not too fast and do not spread.
• I prefer civil and respectful debates and be courteous to your opponents and partners.
• I like clearly articulated arguments with well documented evidence.
• I value consistent arguments.
• Refute the logic aside from quantitative data.
• Signpost at the beginning of your speech.
• Arguments brought up last minute will not win you that round.
• Speakers should keep their own time.

I do not disclose unless required by tournament rules.

Good luck and most importantly have fun!

My background: PhD in Chemistry coupled with an MBA degree with an emphasis on finance and operation management. I grew up and completed my undergraduate studies in Asia before pursuing postgraduate education in the United States.

I started to judge in regional and national tournaments in the year of 2021, primarily in PF debates.

Logic flow is important to me. I like arguments that are logically consistent and presented in an organized manner. I have a hard time following arguments without a clear and solid logical flow.

Trained as a scientist in my early career, I tend to be data/evidence driven. Credible evidence is important to support your arguments. Quantitative data makes your arguments stronger.

Debaters should prioritize clear and effective communications in your speeches, avoiding spreading (i.e., speaking rapidly or spreading out a large volume of information in a short amount of time).

I would like debaters to treat your opponents with respect and have fun.

I am a parent judge. No Jargon please.

Please speak clearly, email: hua.chen.debate@gmail.com.

I will post the results to Tabroom for the prelim rounds.

Be respectful and good luck!

I'm a lay judge, so please speak slowly and articulate your words.

My vote is based mostly on weighing and the way you display your arguments.

I judged a couple of tournaments. Lay judge. Go slow. I know the topic. I will kind of flow but also have a good presence.

Parent judge.  Please speak clearly.  Don't spread.  

Like well-developed arguments with good logical reasoning.  Cross fire must be civil. Respect each other and enjoy the debate.

Summary and final focus are key.  Arguments need to be extended effectively.  Prioritize, weight and crystalize.  No need to add a new argument in the final focus. 

Have fun!

My first time judging debates, I spent some time researching online for information on judging debates. It is important to me that a debate has a good delivery, a reasonable pace, and a good flow that explains solid arguments with logical reasoning and examples.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmlJn-zG7qq3vmYdm2lsuzifuaofOVERN7QnPEAc_hM/edit?usp=sharing

I am currently a first-year student at the University of Michigan in the College of Engineering. I debated in mostly PF for 4 years at BASIS Scottsdale.

Please keep the following in mind during the round:

1. I vote for who is winning the weighing if they are also winning the link to that weighing. If no one is winning a link into any weighing, then I'll find the best remaining offense. If you don’t want me to intervene, give clear, warranted weighing.

2. Warrants are far more important than evidence. You should have evidence to back up your warrants and impacts. You can use the warrants in your evidence but you have to give me an explanation, not just some card name. Don't misconstrue evidence.

   • Give me warrants for both your arguments and weighing and do clear comparisons (don't just use jargon).

   • I am inherently more inclined to vote for reasonable arguments but if you warrant any argument well, I will vote for it.

3. I will likely be timing you and will stop listening and cut you off after you go 10 seconds over. Please just stop so everything is fair and on schedule.

4. Signpost and collapse.

5. Extend! Don't just extend your impact, extend your whole argument. Arguments must be in both Consolidation and Rationale if you expect me to vote for them.

6. Frontline starting in 2nd rebuttal, especially turns.

7. Speak at a reasonable speed. If your opponent or judge can’t understand you, it’s not an effective debate.

8. I won’t vote off cross but I will be listening. If you want me to vote off something, say it in speech.

9. Don’t call for an excessive amount of cards. I will only read evidence if I’m told to or think it will affect my decision.

Most importantly, be respectful to EVERYONE. Speech and debate is intended to be a fun, educational activity so let's keep it that way.

Feel free to ask questions before or after the round.

Good luck everyone!

1. I am a lay (parent) judge.
2. I listen well and won't tune out when the speakers talk at a slow to moderate pace.
3. I have a strong affinity towards logical arguments and a strong dislike towards emotional arguments.
4. I classify myself as a true skeptic and I am used to questioning every new idea or information that comes my way.
5. I have a strong aversion to loud voices and harsh tones.
6. I appreciate eye contact throughout the conversation.

I am parent judge and have been judging from past one year in multiple debate competitions.

Don't speak too fast, where I loose the content and discussion. Maintain your pace, present the cards and evidences.

Manage your time properly, i do take notes.

Don't use lot of technical stuff, where i might not get the core of the argument.

I do consider how you speak, how you conduct yourself. Don't be offensive and rude.

I'm pretty tabula rasa. If you don't tell me what to put on my flow, it won't go there.

Please clash. Please weigh. Please tell me why your argument is the better argument or why I should vote for it. Give me voters or you ain't got my vote.

If you choose to run a joke case know that your link chain must be solid or else you will probably lose. I'm all for you trying though.

Hey everyone I’m Ms.Stacy, the PF coach from Leland. Here is the paradigm for PF specifically:

Put me on the chain: shaky1832@yahoo.com

Treat me as a lay (less jargon, slower speed, etc.) I did not compete or coach tech-debate a lot so I am still working on understanding the intricacies of PF. Traditional speaking style/content delivery does weigh into my overall perception of the round, make of this what you will. Be fluent and seem passionate about what you are talking about and you will do great!

That being said, I can tell when a response is new. New responses that were not in rebuttal or summary will not be evaluated. I want to understand the response as you are giving it, not 2 speeches later. As much as I try to be tech>truth, bad response quality, and explanation does still hurt. The same thing goes for extensions, which take more time than a 5-second speed run in the back half. If I do not understand the argument, I will not vote on it.

Keep advocacies topical. I do not trust myself to evaluate any sort of pre-fiat offense whether it be theory, kritiks, or whatever else. The most I could do is evaluate an evidence IVI if the cut is really bad.

Please weigh. A lot of the time I have a really hard time making the “right” decision if I have to evaluate multiple lines of offense with no comparative weighing. If you start the weighing strong and early, it makes the round much easier to evaluate.

Most importantly, remember to have fun!

In terms of timing you can finish your thought but don’t go too much over time. Please time yourself and your opponents. I do not flow cross. You must weigh impacts I won’t do it for you. Overall just be respectful especially to your opponents when they are speaking.

Hello, my name is Lu Gan.

For debate:

• I am a lay judge, please don't spread and talk at a decent pace.
• I have basic knowledge of topics so please make your arguments clear to me.
• Please make sure that your links are made clear and if I call for evidence, you should be able to show it to me. Your arguments must make sense logically.

For speech:

• Make sure I can understand what you are trying to say
• Stay on topic, and don't deviate

Good luck!

I coach a full team, but I have more experience in Parli and IEs. I do not care about the economy so try not to use arguments that uphold the economy over, say, human lives. Please call me "judge" or "Ms. Garcia." Do not call me by my first name.

I will permit post-round questions but if folks are being disrespectful, I reserve the right to leave.

World Schools: I follow the rubric.

Public Forum: I am a speech coach and this should be important to you. Rhetoric > Evidence Dumping, but I will be flowing and taking notes. Don't expect the sheer existence of your cards to win the round for you. You need to explain and analyze how the card bolsters your side of the argument. It would be impossible for me to vote for you, even if you win every argument on the "flow," if you are an incoherent speaker, so make sure to speak slow and clearly. I'm cool with paraphrasing; in fact, I encourage it. You should probably treat me like how you would treat a standard flay, or even a lay judge taking decent flows. No cussing please. I care about morality; your best bet to winning me over is on framework. Once again, I do not care about the economy. If you are blatantly rude to your opponent (verbally insult them, roll your eyes at them, interrupt them during cross unnecessarily, etc.) you will lose my vote.You (the competitors) may reserve the right to share or not share the doc chain with me. I will not penalize you if your opponents choose to share the doc chain with me and you don't, or visa versa.The only Theory shell I know enough about to follow is Topicality. Try not to run any other types of Theory on me. If I'm your judge for the first few prelims, spend some time going over the basics and definitions of the resolution. After that though, try to stick to what makes your case unique.

Policy: I am looking for debaters who don't talk down to me while still clearly hashing out their arguments and plans. I have not and never will vote for disclosure theory. Disclosure is uneducational. If you are a good debater, you won't need the crutch of knowing your opponents' strategies before the round.

-Basic Paradigm: speaking skills > policymaker >stock issues

-Highly value: cx, poise, don't interrupt people, eloquent delivery

-Less Experienced with: Theory, conditional neg positions, Kritiks

Parliamentary: I honestly don't care as much about your evidence. The important thing is that your contentions be centered around common knowledge and that they are cleverly argued. Logic > evidence dumping. The only theory shell I will consider is Topicality. Other theory shells are not educational and defeat the purpose of parliamentary debate.

LD: be creative but not everything leads to nuclear war. I value rhetoric over evidence-dumping. Win me over on framework and you're golden:)

Interpretation: storytelling is most important to me, clearly defined characters are also important, please no screaming, "don't walk through your refrigerator," blocking should be clean.

Platform: puns are encouraged. Visual aids should complement your performance, not distract from it.

Spontaneous: make sure to clearly name the chosen topic multiple times and signpost frequently

Congress: proper parliamentary procedure is encouraged, don't disagree with the PO, I will notice if a particular school/team is prioritizing their own or ignoring recency

I am a lay judge.

1) Speak slowly enough that I can understand you. If I cannot understand what you are saying I cannot vote for you.

2) I like off time roadmaps and make sure to frontline arguments in your responses

3) Be sure to weigh your arguments' impacts against your opponents as I will be voting on which collapsed argument is the best.

4) Be kind to your opponents during crossfire

5) Good luck and have fun!

Hello!

I competed in local and nat circuit PF for 4 years at BASIS Scottsdale.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or the round, please feel free to ask. You can also add me to the email chain if there is one or ask questions that way(rachana.gurudu@gmail.com).

I vote based off weighing first - who is winning the weighing (should be clear and well-warranted, no buzzwords) and who is winning the link to that weighing. If neither team weighs, I'll resort to strongest offense/terminal defense and compare myself but I'd really prefer not to.

Tech > truth, but I definitely lean towards truer, warranted arguments. I'm also not a fan of progressive argumentation and never ran it, so there's a high chance I won't understand you but feel free to run at your own risk!

General stuff:

• Second rebuttal must frontline all turns/arguments you're going for.
• Defense isn't sticky - all responses should be extended in both summary and final focus.
• You should collapse.
• Signpost during speeches or at least give brief roadmaps.
• I won't call for/evaluate any evidence unless you explicitly tell me to or I think it's really absurd, but please don't misconstrue evidence.
• I don't flow cross so if anything important happens, bring it up in the next speech. That being said, I think cross is valuable so don't mess around too much (humor is appreciated though).
• Time yourselves, and don't go more than 10s over.

I'm pretty comfortable with speed but if you plan to spread, please send me a speech doc. Lastly and most importantly, be respectful to everyone in the round. Any exclusionary comments/behavior will get you dropped.

Let me know if there is anything I can do to make the round more comfortable for you, and good luck!

Public Forum:

I flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions and framework. Framework is very important to your case. Make sure you are clear in your contentions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem. You are there to convince me why your team wins-explain the impacts and weighing, FRAMEWORK and explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Be respectful of your opponents and let them talk during cross fire. You should be able to provide your cards, evidence quickly. You should be organized and have them quickly to provide competitor if asked. I will reject any extinction impacts. I will look at climate change and increasing threat of war, but the huge numbers used will not be counted. I do like when teams collapse to one or two best contentions and not the laundry list. Give me the impacts, weighing and why you win.

LD

LD is a speech form of debate and I need to understand your case and reasoning. Spreading is very common today, but it does not mean you are an excellent debater, logical or can convince someone to your side of the argument. You need to convince me, your contentions, framework and the reasons why you won the round. I will flow the rounds and judge based on your speeches not cross fire. I review notes, contentions that flow from beginning to end. Please make sure to have definitions, values and criterion. Make sure you are clear in your contentions, definitions and arguments. If I cannot understand you or you are talking too fast, I miss things and it can be a problem for you. You are there to convince me why you win-explain the impacts, logic, reasoning explain the reason for decision. Pretend I do not know anything about the topic. Debate the resolution and topic. Some LD topics are more like PF but keep to the resolution. Plans and counterplans need to fit the resolution and debaters need to keep to the resolution.

Congress:

Make sure to advance the debate and there are differences betwen first, middle and ending speeches. Do not use debate lingo as please affirm is not done in Congressional debate. Do not use computers and read your notes. Make sure you have credible sources and know your topic. Be able to debate both sides of the topic. Two good/great speeches are better than 3 average/poor speeches so in other words, less can be more. I want you to particpate but quality is very important. You are there to persuade the members.

IE:

Impromptu: Biggest ranking is did you answer the question or prompt. Do you understand what is being asked. Make sure you are organized, confident and always each reason/point relates to the prompt.

Extemporaneous. Use good sources of material. Economic would be The Economist, Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times. New York Times is better than Arizona Republic but make sure you have good credible research. The topics are very advanced and in many cases specific so answer the question. You are to use persuation and logic, with your sources to convince me the answer-keep to the question.

Experience: I competed in every debate event, as well as most speech events over the course of 3 years. I qualified to Nationals twice as well. I'm currently an active NSDA Alumni and I offer hired judging for various schools, mostly in Utah.

General for Speech Events
I will be timing you, but you are also free to time yourself when appropriate. I dislike when speakers try to fill all the time by repeating themselves or talking in circles. Quality over quantity.
If you are double entered, I will alter the speaking order if necessary to make sure you can give both speeches timely. Please speak up if you need this, since Tabroom doesn't always tell me.

General for all Debate Events:

If evidence asked for in-round does not exist or is being blatantly misused, I will not vote for you. If there are claims of evidence being misread or used in an abusive way, I will ask to look at it myself. Most importantly, looking at evidence counts as part of your prep time, unless it gets into rule-breaking disputes.

I like seeing assertiveness during cross, but don't be over the top. A good cross to me looks like advancing a conversation and making points, not just clarifying. If your opponent asks a reasonable question and you are being intentionally vague with your answers or stalling the clock, I will count it against you. Please also look at me and not your opponent as much as possible.

I am perfectly okay with progressive debate (kritiks, philosophy, plans, counter-plans, etc) and know how to judge it, but I am strict with the rulebook on how/when it can be used.

If you plan on spreading, please have your cases ready to share with your opponent(s) or me as necessary.

Email for evidence/case sharing: maeve.k.hall@gmail.com

Lincoln-Douglas:

I weigh most on the Value/criterion debate. If I see it from one debater and not at all from another, my ballot is easy to write. If neither engages, I will have a hard time picking a winner. If both engage, then we all have a fun round.

I do believe having a Value/criterion is necessary. If you don't provide a framework, it's really hard for me to vote for you. If you're unprepared or wanted to do that level of progressive debate, I'm sorry.

Policy:

Please ask for specifics in round

Public Forum (where you’re most likely to encounter me)

I'd recommend treating me like a flay judge. You'll increase your chances for victory if you use rhetorical devices (pausing, inflection, etc.) to capture my attention for the most crucial aspects of your case; in other words, make me hear you.

Win/Loss

In my opinion, the Pro (Affirmative) has the burden to prove the resolution. I'm a blank slate as much as possible, so I don't know anything until you tell me; in addition, I ask that you point out any misinformation from your opponent. Overall, I base victory on the number and weight of arguments, and for me, contentions/arguments should carry through from start to finish (constructive to final focus).

I'm less likely to be concerned with cards until there is an actual point of contention. If you feel that your opponent is misrepresenting or misreading a card, please point that out to me; otherwise, it's very unlikely that I will ever ask to see any cards during round.

Speaker Scores

Students earn speaker points based up their argumentation, refutation, organization and presentation.I recommend using engaging speaking skills (eye contact, pausing, vocal inflection) and compete sentences and avoiding debate-specific jargon (without context).

Please Don’t

Rapid speaking

Hostile/snarky interactions with teammates/opponents

Off time roadmaps

Links to nuclear war (unless the resolution is specifically connected to nuclear disarmament)

Experience/Background (if you’re interested)

I participated in parliamentary debate during college. Currently, I coach primarily at the middle school and (sometimes high school) level (modified parliamentary and public forum) with over 20 years of coaching experience.

Education

B.A Government/Pre-Law (Claremont McKenna College)

M.A Education (San Diego State University)

California State Credentials: Social Studies/History, English Language Arts, School Administration

Current Employment

Director of P-8 Speech and Debate (Fairmont Private Schools, Anaheim CA)

Lead Instructor (New England Academy, Tustin CA)

1. Please be thorough in your explanations.

2. Please refrain from spreading, do not go too fast.

3. Please understand I will not disclose.

4. Please demonstrate respect towards your opponent.

5. Please understand that while I will flow, I expect you to speak loudly and clearly.

6. Please keep track of your own times.

if you need my email for a email chain: catherinejiang10@gmail.com

The following is mostly stolen from Karsen Wahal, thanks Karsen!

PF debater for four years for BASIS Scottsdale.

How I vote:

1. Who is winning the weighing?

2. Who is winning a link into that weighing?

3. If no one is winning a link into any weighing, then I'll either find the best remaining offense, or, if none exists, presume whoever lost the coin flip (that'll be rare, though).

Tech > truth, but I'm probably marginally more inclined towards truer arguments.

I debated pretty quickly and I'm totally good with PF fast, but not policy spreading. If you do really want to spread for some reason, at least provide a speech doc.

Second rebuttal must frontline -- all turns must be frontlined and frontline the argument you're going for.

Weighing is the most important thing for me, and it's typically how I evaluate rounds. Give me warrants for your weighing and do clear comparisons (don't just use buzzwords).

Tell me why to prefer your arguments -- give me impact comparisons, link comparisons, evidence comparisons. If you do that effectively, you'll almost always win. Sidenote: Probability weighing is fake 95% of the time, but if you warrant it well, I'll buy it. If it's the only other weighing in the round, I'll probably also buy it.

Warrant everything. Don't just extend your impact, extend your whole argument.

Please collapse.

Logic is great -- evidence is better, but I'm more than willing to vote on well-warranted logical turns or defense.

If you do cooler weighing mechanisms than just scope/magnitude etc., you get bonus points.

Defense is sticky, but if defense is frontlined, it must be responded to in the next speech.

Signposting is important. Tell me how to vote in FF (treat me like a lay judge in your final focus).

I won't call for evidence unless a) it's contested in the round and it'll affect my decision or b) I just think it's interesting. But please don't misconstrue evidence: if it's really horrendous, I'll drop you for it. PLEASE don't call for a lot a lot of evidence! Progressive argumentation is fine, but I didn't run theory/Ks in high school. Run it at your own risk (I might not understand it at all).

Cross: I don't pay that much attention, and don't flow it, so if something important happens, tell me. I'll pay some attention though, so don't screw around too much.

I'll time you guys sometimes if I'm in the mood, but if I don't, please time yourselves. 10 sec grace period.

I appreciate humor.

Most importantly, don't be exclusive. To anyone. Period.

I'll almost always disclose. Feel free to ask questions.

my own stuff:

i try my best to be a good judge, but please feel free to ask questions because i do miss stuff sometimes and i dont piece together some args until post round!

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

I am a lay judge. But I have judged several times before and I take detailed notes. Professionally I am a software engineer with 20+ years in the software industry. This means I will understand your elaborate arguments with long link chains, but keep it real. I am truth over tech.

I typically average my speaker points at around 28.5. I value strong speakers.

Hello, my name is Aakansha.

I did Public Forum for 3 years in high school in Arizona. During this time, I was first speaker. With that being said, I generally judge flay. I will be flowing your debate but make sure you are sign posting throughout the entire debate. Make it clear to me where you want what argument put on the flow. Also, don’t just care dump, make sure you are stating and extending the warrants.

if you plan on running any progressive argument, keep in mind that I never ran it when I was in high school. So please fully explain and I will judge it to the best of my abilities. Lastly, I would prefer if you guys did not spread.

Have fun and feel free to ask any questions before the round.

TLDR; flow judge.

Hey everyone, my name is Neha, and I'm currently studying Economics at ASU! I competed in Public Forum all four years in high school and very briefly in Congress and Extemp. Currently, I am coaching my former high school's Public Forum team, so I do know the topic relatively well.

Here's what I would like to see in the round:

1. I can flow if you spread, but my flow will be significantly worst.

2. I prefer to hear cards in every speech. If you are saying something have a card to back it up. If you are not mentioning a card, I will assume it is coming from your own analysis of the argument.

3. Please make sure that you are properly extending your warrants throughout the round. If I don't see in the flow how your impact happens (with specific evidence!) during the summary, it will not get flowed through.

*If you are falsifying evidence in your case/blocks you automatically get dropped. No excuses. Please be careful with this!

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before round!

***ALL cards read during ANY speech need to be sent in the email chain PRIOR to the speech. If you are not comfortable adapting to this standard, please strike me

North Broward '20 Wake Forest '24

Quartered @ TOC and have minimal college policy experience

Head Public Forum Coach @ Quarry Lane

Email: katzto20@wfu.edu

tech>truth

I would prefer both teams talk about the topic. I have given up on judging bad PF theory / K debates.

debate is a game and the team that plays the best will win.

This is my first year of judging but I do have a few principles that I stand behind.

- No spreading. I flow debates the old fashioned way, by writing on paper. It is the participant's responsibility to make sure I can flow the debate. If I cannot keep up because a presenter speaks too fast or fails to emphasize their points or contentions well, the result may not be what you expect. If you see me writing frantically and seemingly not paying attention to you, slow down.

- I will not connect your arguments. If there is a connection to be made, you must make it for me.

- I like the participants to engage with me as a judge. Eye contact is important to not only see if I'm engaged but also to demonstrate your conviction.

- The better you weigh your impacts, the better your results will be.

- Since I'm a lay judge, if you run plans/counterplans/kritiks I may not understand your argument. Be sure to fully explain what an argument is if you want me to vote on it.

- Please do not try to load your opponent with off-case positions or tons of rebuttals with the hope that they ignore it. I pay attention most to the logic of the round, and will vote off who logically proves their side the best.

Hello,

I am a first time parent judge.

- Please speak clearly and avoid spreading.
- I expect debaters to engage in a healthy and constructive manner, avoiding personal attacks and disrespectful behavior.
- I will be flowing so please articulate your points concisely and structure their arguments logically.
- A well-conducted cross-examination can significantly impact my evaluation.
- Respect the allocated time limits (Speaking and Prep). Being concise and impactful within the given time frame is a skill I highly appreciate.

My decision will be based on the quality of arguments, evidence, organization, delivery, and overall persuasion. Provide me with a clear reason to vote in your favor.

Good luck!

I am new to debate judging so talk clearly and don’t spread. For me it’s really important to have clearly articulated points with facts and evidence. Quality of arguments matter more than quantity. Although I don’t judge based on cross x however you can get an advantage if team asks right questions and able to provide logical answers to the opponent teams questions. Also, final focus is one of the most important part.

Background

I have no personal speech and debate competition experience. I began judging in early 2014; I have been involved in the community ever since and have attended/judged/run tournaments at a rate of 30 tournaments per year give or take. The onset of online in early 2020 has only pushed that number higher. I began coaching in 2016 starting in Congressional Debate and currently act as my program's Public Forum Coach.

General Expectations of Me (Things for You to Consider)

Consider me "flay" on average, "flow" on a good day. Here is a list of things NOT to expect from me:

1. Don't make assumptions about my knowledge. Do not expect me to know the things you know. Always make the choice to explain things fully.
2. Post-round me if you want, I don't care. If you want to post-round me, I'll sit there and take it. Don't think I'll change my mind though. All things that should influence my decision need to occur in the debate and if I didn’t catch it, that’s too bad.
3. Regarding Disclosures/Decisions. Do not expect me to disclose in prelims unless the tournament explicitly tells me to. I will disclose all elim rounds unless explicitly told not to.
4. Clarity > Speed. I flow on paper, meaning I most likely won't be looking at either competitor/team too often during the round. Please don't take that as a discouraging signal, I'm simply trying to keep up. This also means I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you speak too quickly.
5. Defense is not sticky in PF. Coverage is important in debate; it allows for a sensible narrative to be established over the course of the round. Summary, not Rebuttal, is the setup for Final Focus.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

General Debate Philosophy

I am tech > truth by the slimmest of margins. I am here to identify a winner of a debate, not choose one. Will I fail at this? At times yes. But I believe that the participants in the round should be the sole factors in determining who wins and loses a debate. At its most extreme, I will vote (and have voted) for a competitor/team who lies IF AND ONLY IF those lies are not called out/identified by the opposing competitor/team. If I am to practice tabula rasa, then I must adopt this line of reasoning. Will I identify in my ballot that a lie was told? Absolutely.

Why take this hard line? Because debate is a space where we can practice an open exchange of information. This means it is also a space where we can practice calling out nonsense in a respectful manner. The conversations of the world beyond debate will not be limited by time constraints or speaker order nor will there be an authority or ombudsman to determine what is truth. We must do that on our own. If you hear something false, investigate it. Bring it to my attention. Explain the falsehood. Take the time to set the record straight.

Public Forum / Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Regarding speaker points:

I judge on the standard tabroom scale. 27.5 is average; 30 is the second coming manifested in speech form; and 20 and under is if you stabbed someone in the round. Everyone starts at a 27.5 and depending on how the round goes, that score will fluctuate. I expect clarity, fluidity, confidence and decorum in all speeches. Being able to convey those facets to me in your speech will boost your score; a lack in any will negatively affect speaker points. I judge harshly: 29+ scores are rare and 30 is a unicorn. DO NOT think you can eschew etiquette and good speaking ability simply due to the rationale that "this is debate and W's and L's are what matter."

Do not yell at your opponent(s) in cross. Avoid eye contact with them during cross as much as possible to keep the debate as civil as it can be. If it helps, look at me; at the very least, I won’t be antagonistic. I understand that debate can get heated and emotional; please utilize the appropriate coping mechanisms to ensure that proper decorum is upheld. Do not leave in the middle of round to go to the bathroom or any other reason outside of emergency, at which point alert me to that emergency.

Structure/Organization:

Please signpost. I cannot stress this enough without using caps and larger font. If you do not signpost or provide some way for me to follow along your case/refutations, I will be lost and you will be in trouble. Not actual trouble, but debate trouble. You know what I mean.

Framework (FW):

In Public Forum, I default to Cost-Benefit Analysis unless a different FW is given. Net-Benefit and Risk-Benefit are also common FWs that I do not require explanation for. Broader FWs, like Lives and Econ, also do not require explanation. Anything else, give me some warranting.

In Lincoln Douglas, I need a Value and Value Criterion (or something equivalent to those two) in order to know how to weigh the round. Without them, I am unable to judge effectively because I have not been told what should be valued as most important. Please engage in Value Debates: FWs are the rules under which you win the debate, so make sure your rules and not your opponent's get used in order to swing the debate in your favor. Otherwise, find methods to win under your opponent's FW.

Do not take this to mean that if you win the FW debate, you win the round. That's the beauty of LD: there is no dominant value or value criterion, but there is persuasive interpretation and application of them.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Regarding the decision (RFD):

I judge tabula rasa, or as close to it as possible. I walk in with no knowledge of the topic, just the basic learning I have gained through my public school education. I have a wide breadth of common knowledge, so I will not be requiring cards/evidence for things such as the strength of the US military or the percentage of volcanos that exist underwater. For matters that are strictly factual, I will rarely ask for evidence unless it is something I don’t know, in which case it may be presented in round regardless. What this means is that I am pledging to judge ONLY on what I hear in round. As difficult as this is, and as horrible as it feels to give W’s to teams whom I know didn’t deserve it based on my actual knowledge, that is the burden I uphold. This is the way I reduce my involvement in the round and is to me the best way for each team to have the greatest impact over their debate.

A few exceptions to this rule:

• Regarding dropped points and extensions across flow: I flow ONLY what I hear; if points don’t get brought up, I don’t write them. A clear example would be a contention read in Constructive, having it dropped in Summary, and being revived in Final Focus. I will personally drop it should that occur; I will not need to be prompted to do so, although notification will give me a clearer picture on how well each team is paying attention. Therefore, it does not hurt to alert me. The reason why I do this is simple: if a point is important, it should be brought up consistently. If it is not discussed, I can only assume that it simply does not matter.
• Regarding extensions through ink: This phrase means that arguments were flowed through refutations without addressing the refutations or the full scope of the refutations. I imagine it being like words slamming into a brick wall, but one side thinks it's a fence with gaping holes and moves on with life. I will notice if this happens, especially if both sides are signposting. I will be more likely to drop the arguments if this is brought to my attention by your opponents. Never pretend an attack/defense didn't happen. It will not go your way.
• Regarding links/internal links: I need things to just make sense. Make sure things are decently connected. If I’m listening to an argument and all I can think is “What is happening?” then you have lost me. I will just not buy arguments at that point and this position will be further reinforced should an opposing team point out the lack of or poor quality of the link.

I do not flow cross-examination. It is your time for clarification and identifying clash. Should something arise from it, it is your job to bring it up in your/team’s next speech.

Regarding Progressive: I'm not an expert on this. I am a content debate traditionalist who has through necessity picked up some things over time when it comes to progressive tech.

A) On Ks: As long as it's well structured and it's clear to me why I need to prioritize it over case, then I'm good. If not, then I'll judge on case.

B) On CPs: Don't run them in PF. Try not to run them in LD.

C) On theory: I have no idea how to judge this. Don't bother running it on me; I will simply ignore it.

Regarding RFD in Public Forum: I vote on well-defined and appropriately linked impacts. All impacts must be extended across the flow to be considered. If your Summary speaker drops an impact, I’m sorry but I will not consider it if brought up in Final Focus. What can influence which impacts I deem more important is Framework and weighing. I don’t vote off Framework, but it can determine key impacts which can force a decision.

Regarding RFD in Lincoln Douglas: FW is essential to help me determine which impacts weigh more heavily in the round. Once the FW is determined, the voters are how well each side fulfills the FW and various impacts extending from that. This is similar to how I vote in PF, but with greater emphasis on competing FWs.

SPEED:

I am a paper flow judge; I do not flow on computer. I’m a dinosaur that way. This means if you go through points too quickly, there is a higher likelihood that I may miss things in my haste to write them down. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SPREAD OR SPEED READ. I do not care for it as I see it as a disrespectful form of communication, if even a form of communication at all. Nowhere in life, outside of progressive circuit debate and ad disclaimers, have I had to endure spreading. Regardless of its practical application within meta-debate, I believe it possesses little to no value elsewhere. If you see spreading as a means to an end, that end being recognized as a top debater, then you and I have very different perspectives regarding this activity. Communication is the one facet that will be constantly utilized in your life until the day you die. I would hope that one would train their abilities in a manner that best optimizes that skill for everyday use.

Irrational Paradigm

This section is meant for things that simply anger me beyond rational thought. Do not do them.

1. No puns. No pun tagline, no pun arguments, no pun anything. No puns or I drop you.

Should other things arise, I will add them to this list at that time.

Public Forum:

TLDR: I was a four-year high school debater (standard flow judge that appreciates extensions and warranting)

Tech > Truth

Speed: If your case is above 800 words (200 wpm), cut something.

Cross: I don't listen to crossfire unless things get extremely heated. Cx is a time for asking clarifying questions, not bashing your opponents.

Weighing: Standard (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, reversibility). Feel free to weigh economic impacts over lives. I like interesting weighing mechanisms.

Impacts: Call out your opponents if they have floaty/non-quantifiable impacts. I'll probably buy it.

FF: Please carry through all your desired responses and offense into the last speech. Offense is not sticky, but defense is (please at least briefly mention your defense though).

Concessions: Please don't say the opponents conceded when they didn't. That is my biggest pet peeve.

Links/Warranting > Giant nuke war impacts

2nd Rebuttal should Frontline and begin weighing.

Turns: If the turns are nonsensical and only serve to reduce the amount of response time from the opponents, I'll drop them. Also, don't turn an argument more than once.

Blippy arguments: Please try not to win a round by flowing through a blippy/unwarranted impact that is not responded to by the opponents. I will probably still give you the win, but will be unhappy (because debate is about clash, not overloading the opponents). My tolerance is low for blippy args, so almost any understandable response can be used to delink a blip. Tip: if you're feeling like you're only winning with a blippy argument, you're probably losing in my book.

Lincoln-Douglas:

TLDR: Never competed in LD, know the basics of prog, but prefer trad.

Speed: I don’t enjoy doc debate but keep the speeches at a comprehensible speed OR send me a document for everything.

I would PREFER that the NR follows a similar speed to AC. I find it abusive when the negation spreads when the AC is slow.

Theory Defaults-

tech > truth

comp worlds > truth testing

RVIs good

reasonability > competing interps

DTD < DTA

Condo bad

PICs bad

FW- util if nothing is read

key voters > line-by-line (prog)

line-by-line > key voters (trad)

Tricks: don't.

K's need to be topical at least in some way, and I'd prefer for them to have solvency.

Regarding other preferences, please skim over the PF paradigm as most of that will apply.

My experience is pretty vast. I competed in all the standard debate events, along with Extemp in speech. Competed at NSDA’s in Congress, PF, and Extemp. (Broke in PF) Competed at NCFL’s and went to Semi’s in Congress. Competed at TOC in Congress.

I’m from a pretty small debate team originally that had no access to high end resources such as specific coaching, camps, briefs, etc. Because of this I’m mostly a traditional judge. While progressive arguments are fine, comprehension is sometimes difficult for myself.

I’m primarily a tech judge. While I wouldn’t believe the sky is red, claims that go uncontested and not clashed against, that get brought up in final speeches will be weighed.

K/T can be brought up, but for the most part goes way over my head. I’m fine listening to these arguments.

Signposting and roadmaps are really appreciated. Grouping together specific args, I.e. three turns on contention 1, would be more useful than reading 1 turn, then a disad, then attack the warrant, then bring up another turn.

Evidence quality matters, empirics and peer reviewed evidence is weighed more than simple news evidence.

I’m pretty much fine with students deciding how the round should go, just communicate it with me if you want to do anything outside the norm

I personally hate speaks, I think they are a bad tie breaker, and I never want to be the reason that students don’t break when they win debates, because of this, I give the highest points I can. The exception to this, is courtesy in cross. If you are being rude, I will give lower speaks. There’s no reason to be insulting for someone misunderstanding questions, arguments, etc.

I don’t flow cross, please bring up what’s said in cross in your speech, if you want it to be flowed

Speed is fine, although if I can't understand it I will say clear, this will only happen once. High pace conversation pace is best for me.

Have fun! I know that debate is highly competitive, but it should more fun than stress.

Hello, my name is Haris.

I competed in Public Forum for four years in Arizona, doing extemp speech as well in addition to a few random speech and debate here and there. I mainly competed as a second speaker on the local circuit, but I went to a few nat circuits and competed for a bit as a first speaker. I went to TOC in both PF and extemp, and competed at Nats for PF.

As a judge I am looking for clear, organized argumentation and respect. Just debate your best and be a good person. Please sign post and weigh. Second rebuttal has to frontline and second speaking team cannot make new arguments in the very last speech. Don't be abusive.

As a former debater, I consider myself able to evaluate basically anything, but I do have a warning for progressive arguments. If you want to run theory and K's, go ahead, but I am not confident in my ability to fully understand them since as a PF debater I never ran one myself.

Also, I prefer actual warranting as opposed to only evidence dumping with no explanations or warranting following so don't just drop 10 responses that assert something because this card said so. Give me a warrant.

Ask me in person for clarification and I'll be happy to elaborate. Remember that debate is supposed to be educational and fun.

I am a lay judge. I prefer slow talking and would appreciate it if you implicate your arguments well. Please provide off time roadmaps. Weighing is crucial to the round and I will judge mainly off of it or a lack thereof.

Hello, My name is Autumn Kutsick, I competed on Northern Arizona University's Team for a year and a half. I have competed in Parli, IPDA, Extemporaneous, Impromptu, and Oxford.

Questions on my paradigm or your ballots email: aj.kutsick@gmail.com

You may use the same email to include me in the evidence chain.

General:

1. Don't be a jerk, when it all ends debate is fun and you and your opponent should both learn something.
2. Please weigh your rounds and your impacts, I don't want to do it for you, it's your job to tell me why something is important and why you deserve the vote.
3. Definitions are important, if you are going to claim abuse on a definition tell me why and where it comes from. Don't just add on to definitions.
4. A plan that lacks solvency is not a plan, you must be able to show your plan will actually accomplish something.
5. Impact Calc is important!! If you want my ballot tell me why you deserve it!
6. Do not weigh impacts in an icky way, especially pfers. I will take you down on ethos if you make an argument that clearly ignores important values.
7. Dropped points are very important, especially if your opponent points it out.
8. Do not lie to me, or manipulate source material. I will not use outside information but if you outright lie I will drop the entire point and your speaks. This goes for purposefully misinterpreting and misconstruing cards as well.
9. Don't put words in your opponent's mouth, especially in the last speech. Listen and do not manipulate, using what they say against their case is fine but don't manipulate them to serve your purposes.
10. Speak clearly, I dislike spreading because I don't want to hear 3 pages of evidence I want to hear the logical conclusions you came to from your evidence. You must make arguments not just use your evidence as your argument. This is a sport that requires critical thinking and I want you to show me where you did that thinking.
11. Link your arguments, I don't need you to hold my hand through your case but I do need to see where you draw connections.
12. Currency and uniqueness are important, if your opponent has older evidence that is less important than newer evidence for the issue at hand point it out. Same with unique impacts, while all impacts are important social media isn't the only cause of body image problems, etc.
13. As being someone who did college parli I understand tech and am not lay, however, if you are going to run an out-of-the-box k it better be clear how everything links together.

Speeches:

1. Signpost, I need to be able to follow you for it to make it onto my flow.
2. Stay away from Ad Homonym attacks, these have no place in the education of any round. You and your opponent are both intelligent, show me that by clashing with their case not their personality.

Cross:

1. Yes, it is binding but less important if it isn't mentioned in the speech.
2. Don't be rude. Again this may be heated but no personal attacks.
3. Make sure there is actually a question, don't drone on where it is unclear to both your opponent and I what you are asking.
4. Statements made by those who are supposed to be asking a question will not be considered.
5. If you are going to cut your opponent off do it respectfully at a natural breaking point.

Counterplans (For Policy):

1. Must prove why they are better with less detrimental impacts. Please don't propose a counterplan without solvency.
2. With a counterplan it should still solve the problem completely. IE.) Don't give me a counterplan for the terrible treatment of prisoners in workplaces saying you are going to pay them minimum wage, this leaves out safety, training, etc.

Voters:

1. I vote on well-linked arguments if your plan solves everything but is poorly linked then the status quo outweighs.
2. Show me how your case is better, and what is more important.
3. Make sure the round weight comes back up at the end.
4. Tell me why I'm voting for you and show the impacts if I don't. Please don't make me do the dirty work.

I will disclose and give a verbal RFD if you stick around. Don't be afraid to ask questions and most of all have fun :)!

Hello,

This is my first year judging PF. Please speak legibly and maintain the logical order of the arguments. You will see me focused on taking notes over the course of debate.

Diversity in arguments supporting your case along with any available quantification is perceived positively as it reflects the amount of research and preparedness. Out of the box and/or quick analytical thinking aiding your case is always welcome!

It is important to me that the teams respect each other and maintain the decorum of debate.

Wish you the Best and have fun!

About me: My pronouns are she/they. I am a lay judge with wide interests in politics, history, law, and international affairs. I compete in CARD debate and have done Mock Trial for 4 years. I have judged a few rounds of debate. I consider myself politically moderate and will do my best to judge rounds objectively.

General guidelines: Crosses are an essential part of debate and should be treated as such; please be respectful and do not cut each other off during cross. If you run out of time for the last answer, finish your thought. Please extend results from cross in speeches.

Do not restate evidence that has already been read--extend them instead. Do not antagonize anyone during the round: not your opponents, not your partner, not me. Do not discredit your opponents' abilities to debate. Do not dismiss systemic inequality.

Do time yourselves. Do engage with counterarguments rather than just restating your own through the whole debate. Do the impact calculus and tell me why I should vote for you.

How to win my ballot: It is your responsibility as a debater to clearly set the foundations and context of your argument: take advantage of defining the argument in your own terms. Arguments employing numbers and historical evidence resonate more than appeals to emotion. I prefer solid, practical arguments over abstract, philosophical ones. Explicitly state how your arguments impact the round: "this matters because ___". Clear arguments makes for better flows and a better chance I can see your argument's full potential.

At the end of the day, debate rounds are fun opportunities to grow and learn. I always look forward to judging debate rounds and hearing arguments. I will do my best to provide constructive feedback and a positive experience. Good luck! :)

TLDR: Tech judge. Do real weighing (not probability/other buzzwords). Preference against spreading/speech docs/progressive args.

I debated in public forum for two years and qualified to both TOC and NSDA Nationals. Add me to the email chain: l.priya@wustl.edu

Core Preferences

• HOW I WRITE MY RFD: If you win both the weighing and your argument, you win the round. I will always evaluate weighing first, then the arguments of the team that won the weighing. If they have won their argument (fully won, mitigation may change this) they win the round. If not, I will look at the opposing team's argument. In the rare case that neither team has won any offense, I presume neg unless told otherwise.

• Signpost everything. I prefer you go line by line (unless you have a good reason otherwise).

• Extensions don’t need to be long but need to include every component of your argument. Briefly explain what extended evidence says instead of solely referring to the author’s last name.

• Do real comparative weighing. I don’t hate buzzwords (magnitude, scope, etc) but they generally become a crutch instead of a tool. Weighing on “probability” is usually redundant—winning your offense or defense decides the probability. I prefer you explain why, imagining a world where both impacts are true, yours should still be prioritized.

• Please use analytics, evidence is not everything! They are severely underrated and it will boost speaks to show you can intelligently interact with new arguments based on your own knowledge. Generally: warranted cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards.

• I prefer substance debate, but have a bit of experience running discourse arguments (generally pre-fiat impacts). I am willing to evaluate progressive arguments if they are clearly explained, but the threshold for defense will be very low and I would prefer you just strike me. If you run a progressive argument and by the end I feel at all uncomfortable voting on it, I will default to the opposing team. Finally, if there is a case of genuine abuse, I would rather handle it outside of the round instead of in a debate format. No frivolous theory or tricks.

A Note on Evidence: While I will primarily act as a tech judge, I place a lot of weight on evidence ethics. In my experience, many teams have awful evidence ethics and often miscut/misconstrue cards—this is cheap, and severely undermines the educational aspect of debate. I will call for evidence if it seems questionable and is crucial to the round, or if a team explicitly tells me to do so. Miscut cards, misconstrued evidence, and taking forever to provide evidence when the opposing team or I call for it will negatively impact speaks.

Other Notes

• Will not flow cross but I may listen. Even though it doesn't factor into the decision, as a debater I found cross one of the most educational (and fun!) parts of debate.

• Although I will not flow directly from speech docs, I am willing to reference them for clarification. AKA I will make sure I understand the arguments on my flow, but will not add anything new from the doc. I can handle PF speed, but the faster you go the more likely it is I miss something and if it's not on my flow that's your issue.

• Defense is not sticky. Anything you want in final should be in summary! First summary/second rebuttal must frontline turns, DAs, and arguments that will be extended.

• You can time yourselves. If the opposing team holds up a phone to show me you are over time, I will stop flowing. The grace period (if any) is up to them. As a debater, I would usually be fine with a few seconds over if somebody was just finishing a point.

Speaker Points

If you care, here is the general point scale I follow for speaks (mostly stolen from Yale Invitational). I believe more transparency in the reasoning behind these decisions makes them more meaningful as feedback, and you are welcome to ask any questions after the round.

29.5-30: I wish I could frame your speeches—hard to imagine a better speaker

29.1-29.4: you were consistently excellent

28.8-29.0: you were effective and strategic, and made only minor mistakes

28.3-28.7: you hit all the right notes, but could improve (e.g. depth or efficiency)

27.8-28.2: you mainly did the right thing, but left something to be desired

27.3-27.7: you missed major things and were hard to follow

27.0-27.2: you advanced little in the debate or cost your team the round

26.0-26.9: you are not ready for this division/tournament

Below 26: you were offensive, ignorant, rude, or tried to cheat

Elise Matton, Director of Speech & Debate at Albuquerque Academy (2022–present)
EMAIL CHAIN: enmatton@gmail.com

· B.A. History, Tulane University (Ancient & Early Modern Europe)
· M.A. History, University of New Mexico (U.S. & Latin America)

Competitive Experience:
· CX debate in NM local circuit, 2010 State Champion (2005-2010)
· IPDA/NPDA debate in college, 2012 LSU Mardi Gras Classic Champion (2011-2014)

Coaching Experience:
· Team Assistant, Isidore Newman (primarily judging/trip chaperoning — 2012-2016)
· Assistant Coach, Albuquerque Academy (LD & CX emphasis — 2017–2022)

Judging Experience:
· I judge a mix of local circuit and national circuit tournaments (traditional & progressive) primarily in CX and LD, but occasionally PF or other Speech events.

Note Pre-Jack Howe:

· Jack Howe is my 1st national circuit tournament in policy this season — I haven't seen or judged many rounds at all yet this year and definitely not too many fast/technical/progressive rounds on the topic. Do not assume I know Aff topic areas, core neg ground, abstract topic-specific acronyms, etc. Adjust accordingly!

General Notes (this is catered for policy and national circuit LD. PF notes are at the bottom).

· Speed is fine generally so long as it's not used to excessively prohibit interaction with your arguments. I do think there is a way to spread and still demonstrate strong speaking ability (varying volume, pacing, tone etc) and will probably reward you for it if you're doing both well. Go slower/clearer/or otherwise give vocal emphasis on taglines and key issues such as plan text or aff advocacy, CP texts, alts, ROB/ROJ, counter-interps, etc. Don't start at your max speed but build up to it instead. If you are one of the particularly fast teams in the circuit, I recommend you slow down SLIGHTLY in front of me. I haven't been judging many fast rounds lately, so I'm slightly rusty. I'm happy to call out "clear" and/or "slow" to help you find that my upper brightline so you can adjust accordingly as needed.

· Put me on the email chain (enmatton@gmail.com) but know I don't like rounds that REQUIRE me to read the doc while you're speaking (or ideally at all). I tend to have the speech doc up, but I am annoyed by rounds where debaters ASSUME that everyone is reading along with them. I flow off what I hear, not what I read, and I believe that your delivery and performance are important aspects of this activity and you have the burden of clearly articulating your points well enough that I theoretically shouldn't need to look at the docs at all for anything other than ev checking when it's requested. If someone who wasn't looking at your speech doc would not be able to tell the difference between the end of one card/warrant and the beginning of a new tagline, you need better vocal variety and clarity (louder, intonation change, inserting "and" or "next" between cards etc, etc.

· The most impressive debaters to me are ones who can handle intense high-level technical debates, but who can make it accessible to a wide variety of audiences. This means that I look for good use of tech and strategy, but ALSO for the ability to "boil it down" in clearly worded extensions, underviews, overviews, and explanations of your paths to the ballot. I strongly value debaters who can summarize the main thesis of each piece of offense in their own words. It shows you have a strong command of the material and that you are highly involved in your own debate prep.

· I believe that Tech>truth GENERALLY, BUT- Just because an argument is dropped doesn't necessarily mean I'll give you 100% weight on it if the warrants aren't there or it is absurdly blippy. I also have and will vote for teams that may be less technically proficient but still make valid warranted claims even if they aren't done formatted in a "Technical" manner. Ex: if you run some a theory argument against a less technical team who doesn't know how to line-by-line respond to it, but they make general arguments about why this strategy is harmful to debaters and the debate community and argue that you should lose for it, I would treat that like an RVI even if they don't call it an RVI. Etc.

· Use my occasional facial expression as cues. You’ll probably notice me either nodding occasionally or looking quizzically from time to time- if something sounds confusing or I’m not following you’ll be able to tell and can and should probably spend a few more seconds re-explaining that argument in another way (don't dwell on this if it happens — if it's an important enough point that you think you need to win, use the cue to help you and try explaining it again!) Note the nodding doesn't mean I necessarily agree with a point, just following it and think you're explaining it well. If you find this distracting please say so pre-round and I’ll make an effort not to do so.

· Use Content warnings if discussing anything that could make the space less safe for anyone within it and be willing to adapt for opponents or judges in the room.

Role as a Judge

Debate is incredible because it is student-driven, but I don't think that means I abandon my role as an educator or an adult in the space when I am in the back of the room making my decision. I believe that good debaters should be able to adapt to multiple audiences. Does this mean completely altering EVERYTHING you do to adapt to a certain judge (traditional judge, K judge, anti-spreading judge, lay judge, etc etc)? No, but it does mean thinking concretely about how you can filter your strategy/argument/approach through a specific lens for that person.

HOW I MAKE MY RFD: At the end of the last negative speech I usually mark the key areas I could see myself voting and then weigh that against what happens in the 2AR to make my decision. My favorite 2NR/2AR’s are ones that directly lay out and tell me the possible places in the round I could vote for them and how/why. 2NR/2AR’s that are essentially a list of possible RFDs/paths to the ballot for me are my favorite because not only do they make my work easier, but it clearly shows me how well you understood and interpreted the round.

Topicality/Theory

Part of me really loves the meta aspect of T and theory, and part of me loathes the semantics and lack of substance it can produce. I see T and Theory as a needing to exist to help set some limits and boundaries, but I also have a fairly high threshold. Teams can and do continue to convince me of appropriate broadenings of those boundaries. Reasonability tends to ring true to me for the Aff on T, but don’t be afraid to force them to prove or meet that interpretation, especially if it is a stretch, and I can be easily persuaded into competing interps. For theory, I don’t have a problem with conditional arguments but do when a neg strat is almost entirely dependent on running an absurd amount of offcase arguments as a time skew that prevents any substantive discussion of arguments. This kind of strat also assumes I’ll vote on something simply because it was “flowed through”, when really I still have to examine the weight of that argument, which in many cases is insubstantial. At the end of the day, don’t be afraid to use theory- it’s there as a strategy if you think it makes sense for the round context, but if you’re going to run it, please spend time in the standards and voters debate so I can weigh it effectively.

Disadvantages

I love a really good disad, especially with extensive impact comparisons. Specific disads with contextualized links to the aff are some of my all-time favorite arguments, simple as they may seem in construct. The cost/benefit aspect of the case/DA debate is particularly appealing to me. I don’t think generic disads are necessarily bad but good links and/or analytics are key. Be sure your impact scenario is fully developed with terminal impacts. Multiple impact scenarios are good when you can. I'm not anti nuke war scenarios (especially when there is a really specific and good internal link chain and it is contextually related to the topic) but there are tons more systemic level impacts too many debaters neglect.

Counterplans

I used to hate PICs but have seen a few really smart ones in the past few years that are making me challenge that notion. That being said I am not a fan of process CPs, but go for it if it’s key to your strat.

Kritiks

Love them, with some caveats. Overviews/underviews, or really clearly worded taglines are key here. I want to see *your* engagement with the literature. HIGH theory K's with absurdly complicated taglines that use methods of obfuscation are not really my jam. The literature might be complex, and that's fine, but your explanations and taglines to USE those arguments should be vastly more clear and communicable if you want to run it in round! I have a high threshold for teams being able to explain their positions well rather than just card-dump. I ran some kritiks in high school (mostly very traditional cap/biopower) but had a pretty low understanding of the best way to use them and how they engaged with other layers of offense in the round. They weren’t as common in my circuit so I didn’t have a ton of exposure to them. However, they’ve really grown on me and I’ve learned a lot while judging them- they’re probably some of my favorite kind of debate to watch these days. (hint: I truly believe in education as a voter, in part because of my own biases of how much this activity has taught me both in and out of round, but this can work in aff’s favor when terrible K debates happen that take away from topic education as well). Being willing to adapt your K to those unfamiliar with it, whether opponents or judge, not only helps you in terms of potential to win the ballot, but, depending on the kind of kritik you're running or pre-fiat claims, also vastly increases likelihood for real world solvency (that is if your K is one that posits real world solvency- I'm down for more discussion-based rounds as theoretical educational exercises as well). I say this because the direction in which I decided to take my graduate school coursework was directly because of good K debaters who have been willing to go the extra step in truly explaining these positions, regardless of the fact I wasn’t perceived as a “K judge”. I think that concept is bogus and demonstrates some of the elitism still sadly present in our activity. If you love the K, run it- however you will need to remember that I myself wasn’t a K debater and am probably not as well versed in the topic/background/author. As neg you will need to spend specific time really explaining to me the alt/role of the ballot/answers to any commodification type arguments. Despite my openness to critical argumentation, I’m also open to lots of general aff answers here as well including framework arguments focused on policymaking good, state inevitable, perms, etc. Like all arguments, it ultimately boils down to how you warrant and substantiate your claims.

MISCELLANEOUS
Flash time/emailing the doc out isn’t prep time (don’t take advantage of this though). Debaters should keep track of their own time, but I also tend to time as well in case of the rare timer failure. If we are evidence sharing, know that I still think you have the burden as debaters to clearly explain your arguments, (aka don’t assume that I'll constantly use the doc or default to it- what counts is still ultimately what comes out of you mouth).

I will yell “clear” if the spread is too incoherent for me to flow, or if I need you to slow down slightly but not if otherwise. If I have to say it more than twice you should probably slow down significantly. My preference while spreading is to go significantly slower/louder/clearer on the tagline and author. Don’t spread out teams that are clearly much slower than you- you don’t have to feel like you have to completely alter your presentation and style, but you should adapt somewhat to make the round educational for everyone. I think spreading is a debate skill you should employ at your discretion, bearing in mind what that means for your opponents and the judge in that round. Be smart about it, but also be inclusive for whoever else is in that round with you.

**PUBLIC FORUM**

I don't judge PF nearly as frequently as I do CX/LD, so I'm not as up to date on norms and trends.

Mostly when judging PF I default to util/cost-benefit analysis framing and then I evaluate clash and impacts, though the burden is on you to effectively weigh that clash and the impacts.

Final Focus should really focus on the ballot story and impact calc. Explain all the possible paths to the ballot and how you access them.

Compared to LD and CX, I find that clash gets developed much later in the round because the 2nd constructive doesn't (typically?) involve any refutations (which I find bizarre from a speech structure standpoint). For this reason, I appreciate utilizing frontlining as much as possible and extending defense into summary.

Impressive speaking style = extra brownie points for PFers given the nature of the event. Ultimately I'm still going to make a decision based on the flow, but this matters more to me when evaluating PF debaters. Utilize vocal intonation, eye contact, gestures, and variance in vocal pacing.

Grand Crossfire can be fun when done right but horribly chaotic when done wrong. Make an effort to not have both partners trying to answer/ask questions simultaneously or I'll have a really hard time making out what's going on. Tag-team it. If Grand Crossfire ends early, I will not convert the time remaining into additional prep. It simply moves us into Final Focus early.

I have a much lower threshold for spreading in PF than I do for CX/LD. I can certainly follow it given my focus on LD and CX, but my philosophy is that PF is stylistically meant to be more accessible and open. I don't mind a rapid delivery, but I will be much less tolerant of teams that spread out opponents, especially given email chains/evidence sharing before the round is not as much of a norm (as far as I've seen).

I am often confused by progressive PF as the structure of the event seems to limit certain things that are otherwise facilitated by CX/LD. Trying to make some of the same nuanced Theory and K debates are incredibly difficult in a debate event structured by 2-3 mins speeches. Please don't ask me to weigh in on or use my ballot to help set a precedent about things like theory, disclosure, or other CX/LD arguments that seem to be spilling into PF. I am not an involved enough member of the PF community to feel comfortable using my ballot to such ends. If any of these things appear in round, I'm happy to evaluate them, but I guess be cautious in this area.

Please feel free to ask any further questions or clarifications before/after the round!- my email is enmatton@gmail.com if you have any specific questions or need to run something by me. Competitors: if communicating with me by email, please CC your coach or adult chaperone. Thank you!

cale@victorybriefs.com or SpeechDrop work

hi! i'm Cale. i've been coaching and judging pf & ld for 8 years. i debated in Texas before that.

general:

- read whatever you like: judging debaters who enjoy what they read is fun. however, keep in mind the coherence of my rfd will scale with your clarity- slow for analytics and tags, send well-organized docs, signpost, and number answers when you can. you'll be much happier with my decision.

- speaks reflect how strategic i found your debating to be. i'll evaluate any style, but admittedly prefer quick, clear debaters that read interesting arguments. (no 30 speaks spike or tko, please)

- i will not 'gut check' or strike an argument just because you've deemed it unwarranted or silly. instead, i encourage you to make an active response- it should be quick to do so if the argument is as underdeveloped as you say.

- extend your arguments. it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but something more than the tag is necessary, even if you think it's conceded.

- keep the round a safe and pleasant place for everyone. i will work hard to give you a thorough decision so long as we can all access the debate and speak about it afterwards without hostility.

- i am not going to use my ballot to make an out-of-round character judgement. if you are concerned your opponent is engaging in genuinely unsafe or violent behavior, a debate decision is not the appropriate means of redress- i will bring it to tab or the relevant party.

ld:

overall- i am best for policy debates, good for theory, worse for phil, and alright for Ks and tricks with some caveats (see below). ultimately, i'd like to judge your preferred strategy, but you will need to be more clear if it's something i'm typically not preffed into the back of. i am only human.

policy- i'll judge kick the counterplan. i lean neg on cp theory claims, and wish the aff would engage in a competition debate rather than read a blippy theory argument, particularly when the 1n is only like 3 off. i am good for your process/consult/intl fiat/etc cp, and, again, wish 1ars would just engage- if you are convinced there is not a discernable net benefit, the argument should be easier to answer. 3 word perms aren't arguments- explain the world of the perm. zero risk exists, and while it is difficult to achieve, it is entirely possible to make an argument's implication so marginal that its functional weight in the round is zero. i really appreciate well-executed impact turn debates, some of my favorite rounds to judge.

theory- no defaults, read w/e you want. always send interps and slow for anything you extemp. far too often in these debates there's no weighing or line by line done on paradigm issues: the 1n reads their theory hedge and vaguely crossapplies it to the 1ac underview, and then all of these arguments just float around in the 1ar and 2n without resolution- please lbl to make judging this tolerable. when going for T, keep in mind i do not actively cut LD prep or mine the wiki, so i don't have a reference point for your caselist or prep-based limits standard- add some explanation.

K- i frequently judge cap arguments, and often judge setcol. external to that, i'm much less experienced- happy to judge it, but i need instruction. please lbl clearly: i find myself most lost in k 2n/2ars when the overview is jargon-heavy and crossapplied everywhere. it is probably useful to know i can count on one hand the number of K v K debates i've been in the back of.

tricks- i often judge truth testing and skep and their associated tricks, but i don't have a deep enough understanding of the argument form to say i'm 10/10 comfortable if you read a nailbomb aff or a bunch of indexicals. in general, delineate in the doc and cross, be super clear abt the collapse strat, and i can vote for these.

phil- i have next to no experience with phil argumentation save for Kant tricks and some pomo (mostly just Baudrillard). need you to slow down and give me extra judge instruction if you're reading anything dense, but happy to learn.

pf:

extend defense the speech after it's answered and be comparative when you're weighing or going for a fw argument. otherwise, read what you think is fun- this includes theory, critical arguments, and other forms less common to PF. two things to add here: 1. don't read an argument just for the sake of it, read it well and 2. i am not amenable to the PF-style 'this argument form is holistically bad' response if we are in the varsity division- engage with substantive responses.

come to round ready to debate (pre-flowed, have docs ready if you're sending them, etc). the only way to frustrate me beyond being rude is to drag out the round by individually calling for a lot of evidence and taking forever to send it.

many PFers spend copious amounts of time impact weighing with multiple mechanisms. more often than not, you are better served reading one simple piece of weighing and investing that time elsewhere- either in more clearly frontlining and extending your case argument, or better implicating a piece of defense or turn on your opponents' case.

Parent judge based in Tennessee.

I cannot handle very fast talking, so please speak slowly and clearly.

I prefer well thought out arguments over just quick, short little responses.

Good luck.

I am a parent volunteer judge for Dougherty Valley High School.

I have no experience with judging and I do not know anything about the different events.

I will award speaker points to the debaters based on how courteous, well-spoken, and confident you are. Do not be rude to your opponents or anyone else in the debate, or else you will definitely lose points. Try to avoid jargon and speak slowly so that I can understand your points.

Try to outline exactly why I should be voting for you. I want to know what your main points are and why they are more important than your opponents.

I will try to note down the important points, but I will not carefully follow every part of the debate.

Try to use as much evidence as you need to get your point across, but I want to hear your reasoning as well. Do not only use evidence.

Make the impacts of your arguments clear. I want to understand how your arguments will affect the world around us.

I prefer aggression in cross-examination, but be polite.

I value the quality of your persuasion over the truth behind your arguments, but that does not mean that you can make anything up. As long as the reasoning is logical enough, then I will consider your argument.

Most importantly, I want to see you have fun in the round.

LD

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

PF

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

I debated PF for Poly Prep (Graduated in 2021) and was relatively successful on the national circuit. Was a pretty typical tech debater (back in like...2020) and am a pretty typical tech/tab judge. If you extend each part of an argument through every speech, warrant throughout the round, and prove to me that you outweigh your opponent, you will win. Please add me to the email chain: abigail@reichmeyer.com

*NOVICES: Extensions are absolutely paramount to me. If you are going to do anything at all in summary and final focus, extend and warrant every part of the argument you are going for.

Some preferences:

1. Please collapse, preferably on one link and one impact. Write my ballot for me in final focus. Start weighing early and spend time on it.
2. You must frontline at least the argument you are going for in second rebuttal; no new responses in second summary to arguments made in first rebuttal. Not worth it to try going new in the two because I will know and not flow it
3. You should cut cards and not paraphrase in case. I’m unlikely to look at/call for evidence unless I am told to, but I am going to scrutinize your evidence more if you paraphrase. Really low threshold for misrepresenting evidence at this point
4. I don’t mind an intense round, but please don’t be a jerk we will all be uncomfortable
5. I have a lot of thoughts about progressive argumentation in PF but TLDR is I am comfortable evaluating in a technical sense but you should 1) really know what you are doing and 2) it often puts me in a position where I have to intervene, because I don’t think it is ethical to give you a W for making arguments that are not the norm in PF in a round where your opponents are out of their depth. Thus, I have to decide my threshold for responses in a way I don’t in typical case debates which is necessarily interventionist
6. I will do absolutely everything short of intervening to avoid presuming, but I presume whatever side is the squo (usually neg)
7. I will probably not write a super detailed RFD but I will give you a comprehensive oral one, so feel free to record that.

Cliche, but have fun. My biggest regret after debate went online my junior year was not savoring the time I had at in person tournaments. Remember that this is supposed to be enjoyable!

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit Policy & PF, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your floor.
5. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
6. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
7. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you are)

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Three caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score, 3) I won't penalize debaters in novice or MS rounds who don't send card docs. We all have enough to learn in those debates without also having to send docs. But if you are a novice team competing in an open/varsity division, the expectation is that you send cards.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Don't do it. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentive you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will get from me are a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your floor.

5. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

6. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

6A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

7. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y"). Also, Neg DOESN'T get to counterplan. Again, you can't specify anything, so neg doesn't even have the resolution to fiat. So, no actionable K alts and no CP texts (even if you call them a "generalized, practical solution." You are stuck defending the status quo, absent a good role of the ballot framing arg for critical negs.

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, If you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

8. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - Because PF Negs don't get fiat (e.g. no power to CP), I don't buy that Neg gets the power to fiat any type of action-based alternative. You can reject or maybe do nothing, and, of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want. But trying to fiat any action as an alternative (e.g. engaging in active resistance, or anything similar) isn't likely to fly with me, unless you can make a really solid ROTB arg to change what my vote means. This severely limits what you can do from the Neg in front of me. Be warned.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

9. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

10. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

11. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

12. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I am a parent judge. I am looking for a thoughtful debate in which each debater thoroughly addresses his/hers/their opponents' points. Please do not speak too quickly; I want to be able to follow along with each of your points.

A little bit about me: I competed in speech and debate for three years during high school, specifically in PF, Congress, limited prep, and interp events. I even dabbled a little in LD and World Schools. Now, I stay involved with the speech and debate community by coaching PF at Phoenix Country Day School in AZ.

As far as paradigms go, I'm open to pretty much any argument you can warrant properly and impact out. I will vote off the flow, but that means your arguments need to be made clear to me. I can keep up with speed, but if I put my pen down, you've lost me. At the end of the round, I am looking for offense, which includes both the impact and the link into that impact, that has been extended cleanly through the debate. Then, it comes down to the weighing that you have done for me on that offense. Don't make me do that work for you because it probably won't turn out the way you want it to!

General things to note:

• Please stand for your speeches unless there is a legitimate reason you are unable to. It helps your public speaking, your persuasiveness, your confidence, you name it.
• For the love of all things holy, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST, SIGNPOST!!!! I want clear taglines and numbered responses. The more organized you are in your responses, the more likely I will follow every piece of your argument, meaning the more likely I am to vote for you.
• I like off-time roadmaps. That means something short like, "I'm going aff then neg," or, "The order will be overview, their case, our case." It shouldn't be anything more than telling me where I will be flowing.
• I will not call for a card unless you specifically ask me to during one of your speeches.
• If something important happens during CX, bring it up during a speech.
• Don't be rude to your opponents. I love a little sass and sarcasm because debate definitely calls for that sometimes, but don't blatantly disrespect one another.

Technical things to note:

• Second rebuttal should frontline (quickly) anything that will be extended in summary.
• Extend important defense. Defense is sticky, but it strengthens your position if you hang onto important defense throughout the round.
• Counterplans: These don't belong in PF. They are a clear violation of rules. Counter advocacies with the necessary probability weighing are fine, but no plan text or specific implementation plan.
• Kritiks: I find Ks really interesting, and I am all for their entrance into PF when you have a tech judge/panel. I want you to read your K to me as if I have not read the literature surrounding the issue though. Just because you say a buzz word, does not mean I understand the argument. Make sure it is well formulated if you want my ballot.
• Theory: If there is a clear violation of PF rules, don't run a shell. Just tell me about the violation during a speech, and that will suffice. If there is a violation of norms that you feel is genuinely worthy of bringing up (i.e. no frivolous theory), I am willing to hear it out. That being said, I am not super well-versed in theory debate, so you just need to make sure you explain to me what the impact of your argument is on the round and why I should care about it. In all honesty, if a team runs theory, you are probably more likely to get my ballot without running a counterinterp and just responding to it the way you would any other argument. All the jargon starts to get lost on me.

I started this technical section based on questions I am frequently asked in round. It is nowhere near exhaustive, so if you have any additional questions or concerns, feel free to ask me when both teams are present before the round!

Also, please include me in the email chain: mittelstedt.taylor@gmail.com

Hello,

I am a lay (parent) judge.

Here is a list of my preferences in a debate round:

• Speak at a slow and understandable pace. (No spreading!!)
• Off time Roadmaps are appreciated.
• Do not run Ks or Theories
• In regards to speaks, usually I range from 26-30. A 30 speaker is one who has a clear and charismatic speaking style along with strong analytical thinking skills used appropriately in the round.
• I flow, but remind me of the most important aspects of the debate CLEARLY in EVERY speech.
• Respect towards opponents and judges is a must.
• Please send your case docs with cut cards to umohta@gmail.com.

I am a parentjudge

I prefer eye contact (you may get extra speaker points)

Do not yell at each other

Do not go to fast

Do not go over time ⏰ more than 7 sec (possibly minus points)

Let's enjoy this !!

I am in my third year of judging PF debates. My judging paradigms are -

1. Communicate arguments clearly with logical reasoning and good evidence.
2. Speak clearly.
3. Weighing arguments and comparison of impacts are important.
4. I will evaluate arguments that are extended through the round.
5. Collapse on the strongest arguments in summary and final focus.

I am a first-time judge for public forum debate. I am okay if you speak slightly fast but make sure you are clear so your opponents and judge can understand. Apart from that, I want rebuttals, summaries, and final focuses to be cleanly formatted by using signposting and an off-time roadmap.

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

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

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

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

1). Please show utmost respect to both your opponents and teammates. If I hear derogatory behavior from anyone, I will have to vote against you (Absolutely fine to be assertive and bold but please do not interrupt nor show disrespect).

2). No spreading at all. Talk in a way I can understand.

3). Time yourselves. I expect you to be fair about it.

4). You do not have to extend every piece of warranting but do it so I can still put stuff down in our flow.

5). I am a relatively new judge so organize your information in a way that is clear and concise.

6). Signpost or it will be hard to follow you.

Hello!

I am a lay judge:

• truth > tech
• no spreading
• extend your points so I understand them
• I have a background in tech
• performance = substance

Thank you! Looking forward to a great round.

I prefer tech>truth

no spreading, have a good presentation

more than impacts I care more of the warranting, so don’t just tell me how bad ur impact, tell me how your impact is reached and then weigh

weighing is HUGE do not forget

be respectful!!!

Background:

• State Champion and 2-time entrant to the Tournament of Champions for Brophy College Preparatory in PF.
• Graduated from U of A Honors College with a triple major in Economics, Political Science and Classics.
• Coached and founded Salpointe PF Debate and ran the UA Model UN program in college. Post-graduation I coached for my alma mater for 5 years.
• Presently, I am a management consultant specializing in data analytics for government clients and I have my own side gig doing oratory, analytics and strategy consulting see petsasconsulting.com.

What I would want changed in the status quo:

• N/A

What I expect/prefer:

• In an exchange of evidence no one is allowed to prep until evidence is received.
• The second rebuttal must defend their case that they wish to extend. "New argument" to me, means something mutually exclusive to the existing arguments on the flow. Continuing the debate, to me, is important and more constructive for learning rather than repeating the same thing you have said since the constructive. Interact specifically with your opponent's arguments! To do that you will have to listen to them instead of reading straight from your block files.
• As long as every word is articulated and easily understood, you can go as fast as you would like. If I stop flowing in constructive or rebuttal, then you are doing something wrong. Spreading/going fast will result in lower speaker points but you can still win the round. I do value Speech theory and will evaluate even if it is brought up late in a round, but if you are bringing it up late in round, you must warrant why I should still evaluate an argument that would ordinarily violate the rules.
• I do not flow CX. It is time for debaters to seek explanations from their opponents and seek out contradictions in their line of argumentation. If you give a speech the whole time, then you are wasting your time and my time. Same goes for reading evidence etc. Anything that happens that is of any value in CX should be brought up in a speech, otherwise, it didn't happen (and very often nothing productive does happen).
• I expect that there will be impact calculus done for me in the round. On a VERY BASIC level, for example, if one team's most important argument comes down to economic impacts and their opponents most important argument is going for an environmental impact then I would EXPECT reasons as to prefer one impact over the other. You do not want me to decide what is important.
• I do not care if you are the "better team" if the worse team makes better arguments, then they will win the round. Good teams can lose easy debates, I am not going to give it to you, you have to earn it. It is always best to leave no doubt.
• Only give me an off-time roadmap if you are actually doing something out of the ordinary in terms of starting in a particular place on the flow that isn't the top of one side.
• If you are the first rebuttal and you take time to "strengthen your case" without providing new evidence or impact calculus at the end when your opponents haven't attacked it yet, then you are doing it wrong. Please sit down if you have nothing else to say.
• I do not want to shake your hand after the round.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

About Me:

Most of my career has been as a middle school history teacher, although right now I coordinate most of my school’s extracurricular activities as well as coach our Middle School Speech & Debate team. I’ve got no personal experience debating - it wasn't offered where I went to school - but have racked up a fair bit of public speaking in my professional career.

As a Judge:

On a typical Saturday you’ll find me judging just about everything, from speech to debate in both middle school and high school. But I gravitate towards Public Forum as that’s where I find myself spending the bulk of my energy as a coach. I am well aware of this recent shift towards kritiks in the event, which has yet to arrive on the shores of middle school debate. I will be honest: if that’s your main strategy, I might not be your judge. I’m not saying that I’ll never vote for one, but it just feels awfully out of place in a debate round, not to mention unsporting. On a somewhat similar note, I’d prefer a well-delivered and measured pace to a case that sounds like it’s being read by an auctioneer.

That being said: I’ll hear whatever you want to argue, however you want to present it. Debate to me is in its ideal form a wonderful vehicle for honing logic and examining different perspectives with integrity. (When debate is approached cynically, it’s sophistry, which I despise no matter how noble the end goal may allegedly be.) Along those lines, I feel like it’d be hypocritical of me as a judge to rule out anything just because it’s not my personal preference. Who knows! Maybe I’ll have to edit this paradigm quite significantly as my judging career continues.

I am a parent lay judge, and I value clear arguments that logically make sense. For speed, please speak at a normal pace so i can understand and flow everything you say.

Please speak slow and try not to spread so I can understand all aspects of your argument. Make sure to weigh and collapse. Signposting is helpful for me as I'm a flow judge. You are responsible for keeping track of time.

I debated for a year but it’s been a while, so I would prefer no spreading.

Don’t waste time talking about things that don’t correlate to your main contention, try to stay on topic please!

I vote for people who consistently flow arguments throughout the debate, as much as I value evidence, it’s important to emphasize the importance of certain cards.

Absolutely do not be rude during any point in the round.

Cross isn’t too important to me in terms of proving the opposing side wrong, just keep your cool and act like you know what you’re talking about.

Be nice and confident :)

I competed in Policy (CX) for 3 years in high school. I am a Chinese/Arabic/Serbian linguist and have worked in military intelligence for 20 years. I am a current high school debate coach and I teach Policy, LD, PF, Congress, and World Schools debate.

Email for questions/file sharing: rasmum@nv.ccsd.net

Judging style

I believe that debate is a competitive event, and having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event so long as using the jargon does not become the event. I do not mind the use of terms such as "drop," "extend," "turn," "flow," or "cross-apply," but they should not replace the substance and do not automatically add impacts. I am not big on technical wins, so your opponent dropping a contention or card does not automatically win you the round. I will not intervene: You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round.

I prefer well-argued and supported points to spreading. Being able to say so many points that your opponent is not able to address each one in their rebuttal is not truly a skill and does not show me that you understand your position. Don't spread!

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Speaker Points

Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive

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

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

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

27 is average. The speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity, or other areas of rhetoric.

28 is above average. The speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. The speaker was compelling and used rhetorical devices well.

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

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

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

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

Do speak clearly (speed is okay, but you must be understandable). Be nice to your opponents, enjoy your debate, tell a clear story and make it count. I value presentation, clarity of arguments and good eye contact.

Hello debaters! As a student at ASU with no prior experience in speech and debate, I'm excited to start judging. In order to make your discourse more fruitful, here are some key aspects I value as a judge:

Civility and Respect: I strongly believe in the power of civil discourse. Please maintain a respectful tone throughout the debate. Disagreements are inevitable, but let's ensure they are handled with courtesy and professionalism.

Clear Communication: Clarity is paramount. Avoid spreading, as it might hinder my understanding of your arguments. Take the time to articulate your points clearly, allowing for a more effective exchange of ideas.

Thorough Explanation of Logic Chains: I appreciate debaters who take the time to break down their arguments, ensuring that each step in their logic chain is clearly articulated. This not only aids my understanding but also strengthens the overall quality of the debate.

Emphasis on Impacts: While presenting your arguments, make sure to emphasize their real-world impacts. Help me see the broader significance of your points and how they contribute to the overall narrative of the debate.

TOC:

Evidence and Docs: There was a little confusion about evidence exchange and prep time this morning in the Judges Meeting. PF Tab clarified in an email that page 56/57 PF rules still stand and if Team A calls for Team B's evidence they can get free prep until Team B produces that evidence. When Team A gets that evidence in hand then prep time starts. Please let your judges know they got an email with the clarification. But please just send the evidence ASAP.

Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want.

Emails: Please put gabriel.rusk@gmail.com on the email chain as well as fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com

Uniqueness: If you are running an argument that is based on some fairly recent dynamic or fluid geopolitical scenario you prob should have UQ updates from this week. Postdates aren't automatic evidence triumphs please still implicate why they matter.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

I am new to PF Debate Judging this year and have enjoyed it so far. As a 1st generation immigrant I value diversity of thought and the democratic process including debating ideas which I believe is the seed of innovation and progress. The best debates involve participants who do equal part talking and LISTENING to the other side’s perspective to allow for better CROSS, more authentic CLASH, and ultimately the clearest solutions/wins. I am especially interested in topics central to current events, culture and modern economics since one of my hobbies involves extensive reading and research in these areas. I may attempt to FLOW, but I am still learning.

I value clean, respectful debate where the individuals and teams debating respect each other, their selves, the topics they are debating, and humanity in general.

I have been assisting in coaching and judging for both LD and PF for a year at Fenwick High School. I will be evaluating each team based on clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, thoroughness, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

I am open to a variety of arguments, conventional and unconventional, and look for the following:

1) Speed of delivery can be brisk, but must be clear enough so argument can be appropriately heard, processed, and flowed.

2) I prefer our second rebuttal for PF to hit more big picture themes and flaws

3) Voting issues are essential - please include them

4) A lack of extension of an argument will not hurt your score, but successfully extending an argument is certainly a sign of a well-constructed debate

5) Argument is valued over style

6) Debates can be won using an opponent’s framework, but must be as well-constructed and multifaceted as if they used their own.

7) Evidence is CRUCIAL. No evidence = no basis for argument

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

General Stuff:

- Tech > Truth

- Second rebuttal should frontline responses from first rebuttal. I probably won't accept new evidence in second summary.

- Defense should be in first summary as I think that 3 minutes is long enough to do so.

- While conceded turns are 100% true, they must be explained, implicated, and weighed properly. Failure to do so will probably mean that I won't evaluate them. With that being said, please limit the amount of disads you read, no matter how well they are implicated, I probably won't evaluate more than 3.

- I'm fine with teams reading defense to kick out of turns but it has to be done in the subsequent speech.

- I'm generally tech over truth. I think that PF has become much more focused on the validity of evidence, and while this is important, I will always default to warranted analytics over unwarranted evidence that has a carded statistic. While this may be true, keep in mind that I won't accept blippy or nonexistent warrants as it is far too easy for teams to get away with.

- Please COLLAPSE and extend case properly in summary and final focus. I won't grant you any offense if you don't extend uniqueness, link, and impact.

- In the rare event that I am forced to, I don't have a set rule as to who I default to (I'm kind of torn between defaulting neg or defaulting first speaking team), so I'll have to intervene somewhere on the flow. PLEASE convince me otherwise as I'd gladly appreciate it.

Things I Like:

- I don't value weighing as much as most judges. I think that if you disprove your opponents then you don't need to weigh because your opponents are wrong anyway. That being said, you should still weigh because you won't be able to guarantee that you disprove your opponents from my perspective.

A. Weighing has to be comparative. Please don't reiterate the same impact ev over and over again.

B. Please metaweigh. You don't have to metaweigh if you're going for a prereq due to the fact that it is the highest form of weighing and I will always evaluate it first.

C. I'll buy weighing in both summaries but its better if its set up earlier in round. I probably won't evaluate weighing in FF unless no other weighing is done throughout the rest of the round (This only applies to 1st FF, I won't evaluate any new analysis in 2nd FF).

- Consistency between summary and final focus is important

Things I Don't Like:

- Speed: I've always been quite bad at flowing so the faster you go, the more likely you are to lose me. I'm not a huge fan of speech docs because it allows teams to fit extra content into a doc that they never probably go for in a "normal" round.

With that being said, I prefer the round to progress at a moderate or normal PF pace.

- Going new in the 2. Please don't do this, I'll ignore it and tank your speaks.

- When teams try to hide links and etc in case and blow it up in the later half of the round when it doesn't get responded to. At the end of the day, I will still vote for conceded offense but I'd prefer if teams don't do this because its not very fair.

- Progressive Argumentation (Theory, K's, etc): I don't believe it has a place in PF. If you run it in any massive way I will drop you.

I am parent/lay judge. I have experience as a lawyer. Here are some of the qualities I value

• please try to speak clearly, and not so fast that I can't understand. I prefer slow and understandable over a fast blur.
• I prefer the quality of an argument over the quantity of arguments and information. One crystalline point made sharply and with backup information is more compelling to me than many points mashed together with little backup.
• Think about the coherence of your arguments and rebuttals.
• I tend to prefer debaters whom I can tell really understand their arguments and points, rather than speakers who seem like they are just reading quickly off a sheet, or reciting things they've memorized.
• Some debaters seem to make arguments that they hope will appeal to what they think are a judge's personal political or social views, even though those arguments are weak or a stretch. I will penalize for those weak arguments.
• You can be firm, but also try to be nice! No need to shout, and no need to express scorn or subtle sarcasm in knocking down your opponent's points.
• My email is ethanschwartz@hotmail.com please add me to the email chain. This is not an excuse for you to speak fast, if you send case docs I will not look at them, I take notes on what I hear and if I can't understand you it won't be in my notes. However, I would like to see evidence called for by the other team and additionally I may call for evidence after the round myself and would like it to be sent to this email if I do.
• Finally, try to keep time yourself if you can.
• Have fun!

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

Hello! My name is Nandita and I competed in PF for four years at BASIS Scottsdale.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or judging, feel free to ask before the round.

For ASU: I know absolutely nothing about the topic and have not interacted with debate for almost a year, so please keep that mind! Overall, here are the most important things for me: no spreading, explain your warrants, stay within time, and please please be respectful to each other.

How I vote/ General things:

1. I will evaluate weighing first so make sure you extend weighing into your final two speeches. This should be warranted and most importantly, comparative. Please do not just throw a bunch of jargon at me.

• I will then look to whichever team is winning the weighing and evaluate their offense. If they are winning the weighing and the argument that is weighed, I will vote for that team. If not, I will look to other arguments to decide.

1. Please make sure all your arguments are warranted. Having evidence doesn’t matter if you can’t provide a reason why your evidence is true. Make sure you extend these warrants for your arguments (not just card names, I probably won’t flow them) into summary and final. I can’t vote off an argument if I don’t hear it in your speeches.

2. Second rebuttal and following speeches must frontline all turns and any responses to the argument(s) you are going for.

3. You should probably be collapsing in the latter half of the round. I know some people don’t like collapsing but I think it’s a very effective way to focus on the most important arguments and have adequate time allocation. Please do not frontline arguments that you are not collapsing on.

4. I won’t be evaluating cross, so if anything important happens in cross, make sure it is in your next speech.

5. Calling for cards and reading them can be off prep IF nobody is actively writing/prepping during that time. If you want me to call for your opponent’s evidence, explicitly tell me to do so in your speech.

6. In terms of speaker points, you’ll be fine as long as you fill up most of your speech time without going excessively over and are respectful to everyone. Do not spread.

7. I don’t care about what you’re wearing or if you sit/stand. Do whatever makes you comfortable!

8. I highly highly discourage you from running any sort of progressive args with me.

My biggest pet peeves:

1. When people go over time (speech and prep). I will be timing your speeches and will stop listening at 10s after the allotted speech time. While I may not cut you off, I will be annoyed if you continue to go past this time! That being said, during cross, feel free to answer any question that was asked prior to time running out/finish your statement.

• You should know your speech times but if you don’t, let me know before the round and I will tell you what they are.

1. When people are unnecessarily aggressive or rude. Please make sure you are respectful to everyone in your round. One of the most common ways in which people are disrespectful in round is talking during your opponents' speeches. PLEASE do not do that.

Assuming I have time, I will try to give you feedback after the round is over. Let me know if you have any questions at that time, but bear in mind that it will not change my decision.

Most importantly, Speech and Debate should be an enjoyable activity so make sure you are having fun! Let me know if there’s anything I can do to make you have a more comfortable round.

Good luck to everyone in your rounds!!

I'm a parent judge and both of my kids have done PF debate. I am an engineer by profession and worked for 15 years in large corporations in executive role, now I have been an entrepreneur for the past 10 years. My main thing is that if I can't hear you clearly, I can't evaluate your arguments. Speak clearly and be respectful to other team.

I did PF for four years, graduating in 2021. I qualified to Gold TOC and Nationals and finaled Blake and Harvard my senior year, so I can keep up with most rounds.

Tech > Truth

I'll vote for anything, but there is an inherent burden of proof that needs to be met for me to consider an argument. I won't assume something functions as offense/defense solely because you tell me it does.

I'm not super strict on evidence ethics. I think it's very easy to respond to evidence the way you respond to any other argument, and I encourage you to do so. Paraphrasing is totally fine. It's more realistic, and you have to actually understand the content. I've seen way more evidence ethics issues with cut cards than paraphrased evidence. That said, please still have all your cards cut so evidence sharing runs smoothly. If you take too long, I'll dock speaks. I'll only call for evidence if it's disputed, and I actually need to read it to make a decision.

I have a surface-level understanding of progressive arguments (Theory, K, etc.). I understand the basics, but if you read them, there needs to be a lot of warranting. I will not vote for your argument if your warranting is just a bunch of jargon smushed together. Generally, I think paraphrasing is fine and disclosure is good, but I can be convinced either way.

If you're going to read an actual warranted framework, it needs to be read by first rebuttal at the latest. "Offensive overviews" in second rebuttal are dumb, and my threshold for a good response is much lower.

evidence < warrant < evidence + warrant

Cross doesn't matter (I'll still listen), but concessions are binding. Also, please be nice, it's really not that hard.

Frontline in second rebuttal. Conceded defense doesn't need to be extended in first summary (but definitely in FF)

Earlier the weighing the better. I'll allow new weighing in first final if there's no other weighing in the round, but nothing expanding on existing weighing (no new evidence, prereq analysis, etc.)

If you're going to do weighing, please do more than just pointing out that your impact number is larger. Obviously, I'll still evaluate it, but I want actual comparisons between arguments. Weighing impacts on probability makes no sense, please stop doing it. Strength of link means nothing to me if I don't have some kind of metric for comparing the strength of different links and a reason for why I should care about a link's relative strength.

I prefer slower tech rounds. Speed is still totally fine, just remember that the faster you go, the more likely it is that I miss something, and I'm not flowing off a speech doc. If you go fast in the first half, please at least slow down a little in the back half, especially in final focus.

If you don't signpost in summary and final focus, I will have no idea what is going on in the round, especially if you're going super fast and ignoring the line-by-line

I don't flow card names. If you say a card name, you need to tell me what the card says (including when you're extending stuff in sum/ff).

Please time each other. No grace period, finish what you were saying if you started before time was up, anything else won't be flowed

Extend the full link chain + warrants + evidence for whatever argument you're collapsing on in both summary and final focus. I will not evaluate something if it's not in both speeches or you just skip over your entire link story. Please don't make me drop you because you didn't extend something.

Pleeeeeease collapse.

Nothing new in summary or final focus unless it's responding to something new the other team read in their previous speech, except for weighing.

I default first speaking team.

I start at 28 speaks, and I'll go up or down based on how well I can understand you and how well you debate. Debating well with poor clarity warrants higher speaks than speaking clearly but debating poorly. I will probably give somebody a 30. I won't go lower than 27 unless you say something bigoted or are just straight up being mean.

Post rounding is fine. If you really think you won, odds are I missed something because you went too fast, and it was super blippy.

You don't have to call me judge, Arjun is fine and kinda preferred

For email chains, use arjunrsingh333@gmail.com

If you have any other questions, you can ask me before the round. I am willing to change any part of my paradigm if both teams agree (speech times are non-negotiable).

TL;DR

Extend through summary/final focus and weigh to win

I am open to most arguments as long as the supporting evidence is clear and the link from your arguments to the conclusion you make is well-defined. Avoid spreading; if I can’t understand your words, I cannot be swayed by them.

Maintaining a respectful attitude while delivering responses is an essential part of debate and is expected.

Do your best and don't forget to have fun!

My name is Jonathan Spencer. I would like to applaud you first and foremost for dedicating the time to such a useful and enriching activity. I am a proud member of generation X and don't believe in voting straight ticket in any election. I have a graduate degree from Westminster College of Utah and I work in the financial services sector. Some of the items I will be looking for when I am evaluating your round or event:

1-Preparation. Chance favors those who have spend the time to prepare and put in the hard work to have a successful round.

2-Passion. I want to be moved to feel why your point of view is relevant and valid even if I may disagree with you.

3-Decorum. Its important people are treated with respect and show validation even when a point of view is not in alignment with your own perspective.

4-Be concise. I am not counting words & I'm not overly sensitive to the time you use (however some judges may be).

5- Politics. It is not important to me what political slant you bring into your topic. As stated earlier I want to sense your passion and energy from your presentation. My assessment of you is not swayed by your political views and this does not factor into my evaluation. However I am very interested to learn & become informed from your perspective. Please do not alter your words or content by compromising yourself on the grounds of trying to pick up points by appealing to what political lenses you believe I want to hear.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have worked so hard to prepare and eager to be a part of your adventure in your next round.

JS

I did pf and extemp for Dougherty Valley and was decent at it for 4 years. I did NPDA for like a couple months in college.

My golden rules:

1. Ask Rahi Kotadia.

2. Refer to rule number 2

3. Add me on the email chain rohit.srinivas2@gmail.com. (I don't read ev (that seems legit) unless someone explicitly tells me to and extends it into FF)

4. PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE YOU REACH ROUND. I like to get started asap.

5. READING CARDS IS ON PREP TIME. IF YOU TAKE TOO LONG TO SEND EV I WILL START YOUR PREP TIME. I believe in evidence ethics and it is your responsibility to CUT cards and have them on hand for immediate access.

6. EVIDENCE ETHICS ARE KEY. IF I SUSPECT A CARD IS MISCONSTRUED/FALSE I WILL CALL FOR IT. If I do find it sus, I will tank speaks or maybe drop you. I have changed my stance on calling for cards in recent years because the quality of ethics has been declining severely. Now I do my best to maintain a fair field. I would prefer if everyone read cut cards, but I am not going to drop someone for paraphrasing unless someone reads paraphrasing theory.

7. I do disclose if you give me like 2-3 minutes to submit a decision. I will give oral RFD so stick around after the round. I will disclose speaks if you ask. I judge on how effective I believe you are at communicating. I default 28 if yall are kinda bad at conveying your args and go up to a 30 based on how well I thought you spoke. I can give feedback on speaking if asked.

PF:

Follow rules 1 and 2

Jokes aside I can handle anything pfers got. (I will tank speaks and reserve the right to drop you if you do something icky though. This is supposed to be a safe space)

I will only vote off args in ff, I will not evaluate args not extended in summary. ANY ARGUMENT THAT YOU WANT ME TO VOTE ON NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED PROPERLY. A PROPER EXTENSION MEANS RUNNING THROUGH THE WARRANTS AND LINKS AND THE IMPACTS AGAIN (explain the whole logic behind the argument every time not just a title or name of one). If you are not sure what this means ASK me before round.

Is a blip an argument? Absolutely not. If i say the sky is green with no warrant that is not an argument. I will not vote on turns that have no impact analysis done either. You cannot win without explaining how a turn interacts with their argument and how it gives you an impact.

IMPACT CALC IS KEY TO MY BALLOT. Tell me how to vote. Tell me which type of impacts come first. Tell me why your argument matters more than their argument. If you do not tell me what is more important I will be forced to make a decision on my own and I default to (probability*magnitude) and factor in time frame where shorter timeframe boost probability and longer timeframe harms probability.

Defense is sticky if the other team does not bring up the argument again. If they do, you need to extend defense as well.

IF YOU READ OFF CASE ARGS IN PF PLEASE READ THEM PROPERLY I DO NOT WANT TO EVALUATE SHELLS OR Ks WITHOUT FRAMING FOR EACH ARG. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS ASK BEFORE RD BEGINS. my threshold for tossing out theory spikes is low as long as it is not dropped.

Other args/events:

I did policy camp and picked up college Parli so I can evaluate theory args (Fw, T, random shells) and most common Ks (cap, set col, mil) . (if you do read a K please read it correctly). I do not have experience w stuff like Baudrillard and Nietzche. If you think your K is weird refer to rule number 2.

Tricks idk what to do with them, explain them to me like I am stupid and I might be able to understand. No guarantee I will vote on them the way you imagined.

CI>R unless told otherwise, condo good unless told otherwise (I do not have a threshold at which condo is bad because I believe the nature of reading so many args weakens each individual one), gimme a ROB.

No RVIs unless you have a good reason and win that.

Unlike Rahi I will not intervene and I vote purely off the flow.

Its been a year since I last did parli, so If you will be spreading I reserve the right to yell clear if you are unclear. If you are not a clear speaker above 250 wpm give me a speech doc. If you are clear I will need a speech doc around 275+.

Also please give me a proper off time road map/tell me what papers to put on top of each other.

Assistant Coach for Nueva

Add me to email chain: esteinberg01@wesleyan.edu

PF:

Extensions/General Preferences: A few sentences or a run-on containing a claim, warrant, and impact is sufficient to be considered "extended". However, arguments are usually harder to win on the flow with shallow extensions. The vast majority of teams seem to have issues mechanizing and thoroughly explaining each step of their link-chains. Going fast and covering the flow is not an excuse to avoid explaining your arguments - collapsing effectively and introducing weighing early will make it easier to flesh them out. If both teams are technically proficient, the team that wins will often be the one that can resolve clashes with more thorough and deeper warranting.

Weighing: I despise when teams read a laundry list of weighing buzzwords like "scope, magnitude, probability" without any nuanced argument comparison. Additionally, if you say "Our probability is 100% because it's happening right now" I will roll my eyes. You derive impacts from the probability of preventing the harm or creating the benefit not from the probability of the harm occurring.

-Speed: Go as fast as you want - I have not needed to clear anyone but I will if necessary.

-Theory: I have voted for theory several times this year but I have yet to see a good round with theory in it. Take that how you will.

-K: I majored in philosophy in college so I will be able to follow the material/literature but slow down/thoroughly explain the implications. I would be more than happy to judge a good K round but I will be very sad if you botch a philosopher I like. Unfortunately, the latter happens more often than the former so I would recommend being cautious about running a K in front of me unless you are dope at it.

-Tricks: Haven't judged it yet but I am mildly fascinated by the prospect.

-Use CX to resolve clash - I'm not flowing but cross can still be incredibly productive if used correctly

Parli:

Competed briefly in HS parli and extensively in college (APDA). Open to all kinds of arguments, but see above regarding my perspective on prog args. I am less familiar with Parli norms so connecting prog arguments to Parli may require more connecting and implicating.

For Policy I am largely a policy and stock issues judge. While I am not an absolutist (meaning if you're not 100% on these I reject your case) I do largely want your case to fulfill the burdens of the topic within a reasonable plausibility or ability. This means I want clear eloquent presentations and do not like arguments that are NOT related to the actual topic.

I then focus on the policy itself looking at the advantages and disadvantages of a case. This means that if you like to throw in "game theories" those will be entertained if they accept and help argue the topic and the team can prove that "blowing up the moon" will have a net positive impact on the case.

If you are going to spread, then you should email be a copy of your case so that I can look for the issues you are arguing.

Updated 1/28/2024

Quick Q&A:

1. Yes, include me on the doc chain – mrgrtstrong685@gmail.com

2. No, I am not ok with you just putting the card in the text of the email. Even if it’s just one card

3. Idk if the aff has to read a plan. I went for framework and read a plan, so I'm definitely more versed in that side of the debate, but I'm frequently in support of identity-based challenges to framework. I went for framework because it was the best thing I knew how to go for, not because it was objectively the best

4. No, you should not try to read Baudrillard or other post-modern theories against me. (Yes. Against me.) This is not a challenge. It's not a threat, it's a warning, be careful with me. I am admitting insurmountable bias.

5. Yes, you should (please) slow down while debating if you are online. There are glitches in streaming and it’s hard enough to understand you. For a while, I tried following along with the docs when I missed something, but we all know that just leads to more errors. This is your warning: if you are not clear enough to flow I will not try to flow it. I will give two warnings to be clear (and one after your speech in case you didn’t hear me). If you choose to keep doing you, don’t expect to win or for me to know what you said. On the flip side, if you are actively slowing down to make the debate comprehensible, you will be rewarded with a speaker point bump.

6. JESUS CHRIST PLEASE stop trying to debate how you think I want you to. It's never a good look to over-adapt. The only exception is if you want to go for Baudrillard and somehow ended up with me as a judge. Then please over-adapt. I cannot stress enough the importance of adaptation if you are trying to tell me post-modern theory or that death is cool.

7. I don't like to read cards as a default because decision time is 20 minutes assuming there were no delays in the round. If a card is called into question or my BS meter is going off, I will read the card. Absent that, I'm mostly about the flow and ethos. Tell me what warrants in your card you want me to know about. Point out the parts in the other team's evidence that are bad for them. That makes my judging job easier, causes me to read the card, AND gives you a sick speaker point boost.

WARNINGS:

1. I am chronically ill. If you pref me, there is a chance I have a flare up while judging you. This means I will finish the debate with my camera off but am still there. I just want some privacy while sick/you really don't want to see my face if I turn my camera off. If we are in person this may mean a slight delay in the debate. One time and one time only I have gotten so sick in a debate that a bye was given to both teams. So pref me if you want the chance of a free win!
2. I am a blunt judge. When I say that I mean I am autistic and frequently do not know how to convey or perceive tone in the way that other do. If you post-round me, I wont call you out of your name, but I will be very clear about your skills (or lack thereof) in the debate.
3. I also might cry...I'm clinically hypersensitive from CPTSD. Sometimes people assume I have a tone and "match" or "reraise" what they think I'm doing. If I cry and you weren't being a total jerk, don't over-apologize and make the RFD about me, lets just plan on a written RFD in that case.
4. I appreciate trigger warnings about sexual abuse. I will not vote on trigger warning voters because it's impossible to know everyone's trigger and ultimately we are responsible for our own triggers. All debaters who wish to avoid triggers should inform opponents before the round, not center the debate on it. I'd rather use "tech time" for the triggered debater to try to get back to their usual emotional state and try to finish the round if desired.
5. If the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to sexual harassment/abuse, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.

• This does not include self-expression. I would prefer not to see an erotic performance from high schoolers as an adult, but I am able to do so without sexualizing said debaters. There are limits to this, as you are minors and this is a school activity. Please do not make me have to stop the round because you exposed yourself to the other team, or something similar. If you are in college I still feel like you are a student, but I will honor that you have the right to express yourself without sexualizing you. Please no "flashing" without consent - that is sexual harassment/assault.
• This also does not include a Black debater using the N-word, unless used intentionally to put down another Black debater to the point of distress in the other Black debater.
• When in doubt, don’t make it your goal to traumatize the other team and we will all be fine.
• If you ask a team to say a slur in CX I will interrupt the debate to change course, though I will not auto-vote against you. I don’t think we should encourage people to say slurs to try to prove a point. Find another way, or don’t pref me.

The longer version:

Speaker points:

I've been told you need to average a 29.2 to clear nowadays. Because of that:

-a learning speech will be 28.4-28.7,

-an average speech will be 28.8-29.1,

-a clearing level speech will be 29.2-29.5,

-a top ten speaker will be 29.6-29.9.

I'm not giving 30s. Ya gotta be perfect to get a 30, and Hannah Montana taught me that nobody's perfect.

If you get below a 28.4 you probably severely annoyed me.

If you get below a 28, you were probably a problem in the debate, ethically.

I have yet to give a low point win, to my memory. I generally think winning is a part of speaking well. If you cause your team to lose the debate, you’re likely to get lower points.

Speaker-point factors:

- Did you debate well?

- Were you clear?

- Did you maintain my attention?

- Did you make me laugh, critically think, or gasp?

- Did your arguments or behavior in the debate make me cringe?

- Were you going way to hard in a debate against less experienced debaters and made them feel bad for no reason?

K STUFF:

Planless Clash debates:

-I’ve rarely judged a planless debate where the neg has not gone for framework. In instances where I have, the neg was policy style impact turning a concept of the aff, not going for a K based on a different theory of the world.

-I generally went for framework against planless affirmatives when I debated, and therefore am a bit deeper on the neg side of things. That being said, I also have a standard for what the neg needs to do to make a complete argument.

-I don’t think topicality, or adhering to a resolution, is analogous to rape, slavery, or other atrocities. That doesn't mean arguments about misogynoir, pornotroping, or other arguments of that nature don't work with me. I understand the logic of something being problematic. It's just the oversimplification of theory into false comparisons I take issue with.

-I don’t think that not being topical will cause everyone to quit, lose all ability to navigate existential crises, or other tedious internal link chains. That being said, I love an external impact to framework that defends the politics of government action.

-I would really prefer if people had reasonable arguments on topicality for why or why they don’t need to read a plan, rather than explaining to me their existential impact to voting aff or neg. In the same way that I'm not persuaded the neg will quit or extinction will happen if you don't read a plan, I also don't think extinction will happen if you lose to topicality. Focus instead on the real debate impacts at hand. Though, as said above, I love a good defense of your politics, and if that has a silly extinction impact that's fine.

-I find myself persuaded that the case can not outweigh topicality. Arguments from the case can be used to impact turn topicality, but that is distinct from “case outweighs limits” in my mind. T is a gateway issue. If the neg goes for T, that's what the debate is about. This is why I think many planless 1ACs are best when they have a built-in angle against framework.

-indicts to procedural fairness impacts are persuasive to me.

-modern concrete examples of incrementalism failing or working help a lot

-aff teams need to explain how their counter interpretation solves the neg impacts as well as their impact turns.

-neg teams need to turn the aff impacts and have external offense of their own. Teams frequently do one or the other

Neg K v plans:

-Generally, the alt won’t solve when the aff does a serious push, but the aff will let the neg get away with murder on alt solvency.

-Generally, the alt doing the plan is a reason to reject the alt/team absent a framework debate, which is fine.

-Generally, contradictions justify severance

-Always, the neg is allowed to read Ks

-I'm getting more and more persuaded the neg needs a big push on framework to beat the perm. If the alt is fiated and not mutually exclusive with the plan, there is almost no way to convince me that the perm won't solve. This is not true on topics where the alt impact turns the resolution. You truly can't do both sometimes.

-Framework debates are won by engaging the theory aspect and is pragmatism/action desirable, not just one. Typically the neg spends a bunch of time winning the aff is an unethical method, while the aff is talking about fairness and limits.

-please slow down on framework blocks!

K v K debate:

I tend to find myself thinking of things in terms of causality, so if that’s not your jam you gotta tell me not to think in that way. I have *technically* judged a K v K debate, but I'm pretty sure it was a cap debate that was more impact turn-y than theory of power-y.

I'm interested in seeing debates like this despite my lack of experience.

K stuff in general:

-My degree is in math. While y’all were reading a lot of background lit, I was doing abstract algebra. You might have to break it down a bit. I'm reading a bit more of the stuff y'all debate from in grad school, but it's still safe to eli5. My masters work is mostly on pop culture, hip-hop, and Black Feminist literature. If you want to debate about Megan Thee Stallion, I should be your ordinal one because it is the topic of my thesis.

-I am more persuaded by identity or constructivism than post-modernism. I am the opposite of persuaded by post-modernism.

-I DO NOT recommend reading Baudrillard, Bataille, etc. You might think "but I'm the one that will change her mind;" you aren't. I will be annoyed for having to judge the debate tbh. You have free will to read it if you want, but I have free will to tank your points with ZERO remorse. If this third warning doesn't do it for you, you are responsible for your speaker points. If I was swapped in to judge your debate last minute, I won't tank your speaks. I only clarify because this happened to a team once.

POLICY STUFF:

CPs:

-Tell me if I can (or can’t!) kick it for you. I may or may not remember to if you don’t. I may or may not feel like you are allowed to if you don’t.

-Reading definitions of should means the perm or theory is in tough shape. It's not unwinnable, but I was a 2A… Tricky process counterplans that argue to result in the aff by means of solvency, but are *actually* competitive (more than just should and resolved definitions), game on. If that means you have to define some topic words in an interesting way, I'm fine with that. Also, despite being a classic 2A, I find myself holding the aff to a higher standard sometimes. Maybe it's because I went to MSU, but a lot of times I find myself thinking "this CP obviously doesn't solve. why doesn't the aff just say that or try to cut a card about it???"

-Make the intrinsic perm great again!

-Links to the net benefit is usually a sliding scale. But sometimes links have a certain threshold where it doesn’t matter which links less. Please consider this nuance when debating.

Theory:

-TBH – y’all blaze through theory blocks with no clarity and then get confused when I have no standards written down. These debates are bad. Be more clear. Speak at a flowable pace. Maybe make your own arguments. Idk.

-It is debatable whether an argument is a reason to reject the argument or team.

-2ACs that spend 15-plus seconds on the theory shell will see a lot more mileage and viability for the 2AR. One-sentence blips with no warrants and flow checks will be treated as such.

-impact comparison and turns case are lost arts in theory debates.

DAs:

-Yes, there can be zero DA. No, it’s not as common as you think.

-answer turns case!!!

PF/LD:

I have coached LD and PF for years, but it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates. I was trained for 8 years as a policy debater and continue to coach that format. I have participated in both LD and PF debates a few times in high school, so I’m not a full outsider

LD

I’m not a trickster and I refuse to learn how Kant relates to the topic. Similarly, theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are silly to me. Plan flaws are better when the aff results in something meaningfully different from what they intend to, not something that an editor would fix. I’m not voting/evaluating until the final speech ends. Period.

Dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

PF:

Do not pref me if you paraphrase evidence.

Do not pref me if you do not have a copy of your evidence/relevant part of the article AND full-text article for your opponent upon request.

Please stop with the post-speech evidence swap, make an email chain before the debate, and send your evidence ahead of time. If your case includes analytics you don’t want to send, that’s fine, though I think it’s kinda weaksauce to not disclose your arguments. If the argument is good, it should withstand an answer from the opponent.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be an untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Hello, my name is Qibin

This is my second year and fifth tournament judging, I am a lay judge.

A few preferences:

1) Please don't rush/speak too fast

2) I may ask to see the evidence you cite

3) Please signpost clearly so I know what arguments you are addressing

4) Please weigh in summary and final focus

5) Please have clear extensions of your arguments so I can understand them better.

Let's have a fun and educational round!

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

tl;dr - I vote for teams that know the topic, can indict/rehighlight key evidence, frame to their advantage, can weigh impacts in 4 dimensions (mag, scope, probability, sequence/timing or prereq impacts), and are organized and efficient in their arguments and use of prep and speech time. I am TRUTHFUL TECH.

Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.

Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.

Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.

Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.

First and foremost, I am a coach of a high school team. This means I judge based on how I expect my team to behave. Rudeness will cause me to score lower. This is applicable in both speech and debate. However, as long as you mind your manners in IEs, we’ll be okay. While debate can get heated, it should never get disrespectful. That said, I judge debate based on the following:

PF and LD - I am a judge who heavily favors truth. I place logic above all else. If your arguments aren’t logical and supported well, they will not flow. Additionally, you should have sufficient evidence to support your ideas. If you are throwing out arguments that aren't supported with evidence, they will be less likely to seem reasonable. I don’t flow cross. During this time, I am often writing feedback. I am not a fan of spreading during LD and PF, as I am often not on the case share and am often trying to follow your words.

Congress - Congress should not be boring. If you are not careful, congress can quickly become "boring" or less engaging for your judge. That said, the way you speak matters. You should have logic and reasoning within your speeches, but you should also be engaging. As long as you are engaging and logical, you stand a strong chance.

Hey! I'm Ajay and I debated in Public Forum for 4 years and did Extemp for 3 years at BASIS Peoria in Arizona. I've qualified to nationals in both Public Forum and International Extemp.

Public Forum: Please please please weigh. That's the biggest thing. If one team weighs and the other doesn't, I think you can guess who I'll vote for. Frontlining has to be done (at the latest) in the 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary. I'm tech over truth but that does mean my threshold for responses to crazy arguments is inherently lower.

Just card dumps without warrants mean nothing, make sure you back up all your evidence with solid warranting. That being said, its not an excuse to throw evidence ethics down the drain. I will call you out.

I'll evaluate almost anything but fair warning for progressive debaters, I rarely ever ran progressive args being a PF debater, so my ability to understand your K or theory may not be where you'd want it. So run those with caution.

Oh and make sure to signpost.

Policy: I'd strike me if I were you.

Cultural Competency Certificate

Please make your contention loud and clearly.

Regular speed would be ideal.

Love debate.

I am a traditional judge.

I look for clear arguments and clear connected responses to the opposing side.

I look for explanation on why your side/position matters to the topic.

I expect respectful and engaged debaters.

1. Be respectful: I know you have all worked very hard and can be very passionate but treat each other with respect. Sexist, racist, bigoted and hateful speech will not be tolerated and you will lose.
2. I am trained in science and prefer the most precise, organized, and supported ideas as opposed to any voluminous, shock and awe approaches.
3. Please remember you are trying to convince the judges not the other team. So please do use a well described framework with numbers and signposts so we can follow along appropriately.
4. Please do not spread. If you are struggling to have enough time to present all arguments in a conversational pace, than I will likely find it difficult to follow.
5. I hope you have fun.

Hello,

I am still a bit of a new judge. I was roped into this by my sister. I do not like talking very fast and I am taking notes on a flow, but I am not a flow judge. Just make arguments clear and explain to me why you should win the round.

Please speak slowly and clearly. I will not vote for you if I can't understand what you are arguing for.

I've coached Speech & Debate for around a decade now. I do not support any form of progressive debate in PF. Prove you understand the resolution and the content of the topic. Here’s some advice:

- No spreading, I’ll say “clear” if you need to slow down

- Use taglines and signpost to maintain clarity of flow

- I do not flow cross examination so be sure to include ideas in speech

- I am a believer in pragmatism over the ideological

- Clear elaboration and correlation is as important as card use

-Link the arguments, don't make assumptions or just point to a card

-It should not take over a minute to find cards, please be familiar with your evidence

- Keep the round moving, I’ll keep time of speeches and prep

I am a new lay judge with limited knowledge of the debate topics. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable speed.
I like clearly signposted, well organized arguments with supporting citations and evidences. Please have the full original cards available to share in case they are requested. (don't add me to any email chains)
I like debaters with good presentation skills and would like to see debaters treat each other with good manner and have fun.

Please introduce yourself (name + school + position + first/second speaker) before the round starts! Makes judging a bit easier.

I am a parent lay judge. This is my 3rd year judging PF. Please be polite and respectful to judges and your opponents, and display good sportsmanship.

Make sure you explain your link chain properly and tell me why your contentions or responses make sense.

I would also appreciate it if you tell me why your contentions are more important than your opponents'.

Please speak slow enough so I can understand you and take notes.

Enjoy your debate!

TLDR: Tech > Truth; pretty standard flow judge; follow the line-by-line; there's no need to go super saiyan speed; strong warranting + weighing wins my ballot; skip to the bottom to find some fun speaks boosters (please use these and entertain me. . . please)

Bio: Competed in PF for all four years mostly on the local circuit but also a bit on the national circuit (unfortunate small school tingz :/) at Paradise Valley in Phoenix, AZ; senior at ASU studying Math, CS, and Econ.

Argumentation:

- All substance arguments fly as long as they are well warranted

- Warranted cards >>> Warranted analytics >>> bEcAuSe tHe evIdEnCe sAys sO

- Do not trust me to properly evaluate progressive arguments, I'll probably make a decision that you don't like; if you want to read disclosure theory, then you should probably rethink that strategy

- Weak warranting on an argument means weak responses are sufficient

Structure:

- Arguments that you want evaluated should be extended with a warrant and an impact in summary and final focus

- Second rebuttal and first summary must frontline, otherwise it's conceded

- First summary should extend turns and key defense

- Do not extend through ink, I will drop the argument if you do

- Road maps, signposting, and numbering responses are fantastic, do it

- Collapse and avoid messy rounds; if you want to kick out of something, explain what defense you are conceding and why it kicks out of the turn

- DAs / Overviews are cool, but don't just read a new contention disguised as one

Weighing:

- Just do it. Please. Otherwise I'll decide what's more important and you probably won't like what I pick

- Real comparative analysis, not just "wE oUtwEigH beCauSe 900 mIllIon LiVes iS mOrE tHaN $500 miLliOn"

- Carded weighing overviews/framing should come in rebuttal; other traditional mechanisms can come up through summary

Speaks:

- Speaker points are dumb so I will try to be generous (no free 30s though)

Speed:

- Slow rounds > fast rounds; I can handle some speed but the faster you go, the more I might miss

- Slow down on argument tags; I don't flow author names

- If you plan on spreading...don't

Evidence:

- Read the author, date, and source, it's not that hard

- I'll call for evidence only if either team tells me to

Misc:

- Don’t be a dick; absolutely zero tolerance for sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. behavior - that's a real quick way for me to drop you immediately and tank your speaks

- I like a relaxed, informal, and chill vibe in rounds. Good jokes are great. You can swear, I don’t care.

- Wear whatever the hell you want. Be comfortable!

- Creative references to sports (basketball, football, soccer, tennis, cricket, F1, etc.), chess, or Kendrick Lamar will get you a boost in speaks

- Have fun!

Warrants should be clearly tied to your contentions and weighing outcomes. My final decisions are often made based on whether I buy your links connection to your weighing outcomes. I don't weigh theory arguments very heavily. I believe you should be debating, not attempting to undermine someone's arguments through technical or formatting issues in his or her case. However, I do want you to adhere to rules, specifically no new evidence introduced in second rebuttal. .

Stylistically, I don't like spreading. You can speak quickly, but if I miss something, I'm not going to try and find it later. Be polite during cross. Especially, online; if you talk at the same time, I can't hear either of you.

I always provide feedback, so don't hesitate to ask.

Overall, I want you all to have a good time and learn through the process. Therefore, insulting the other team (ad hominem arguments) are a particular turn-off for me. So if you use one, it will be at your own peril. Keep it clean and friendly and have a good time!!

Hi! I'm Robert! I am a freshman at Arizona State University majoring in Biochemistry. I've been debating since my freshman year of high school! My pronouns are he/him.

I did PF my freshman year and did policy, impromptu and interp my junior and senior year's. I also captained/competed in Spanish policy debate for 3 years. I placed 5th at the Harvard National Tournament in Spanish Policy and placed 1st at the Toro Country Classic in Varsity Policy Debate.

General Debate Paradigm

I have always loved debate mainly because I am very petty and I like to prove my point/get my way but some general paradigms are make sure to extend the arguments you want me to vote on and make them clear and concise because in round because though I did debate in high school and I loved it, I was not very good at it (lol) I am what you could consider a flay judge. I know the basics but I cant get into the nitty gritty of debate theory so you should VERY CLEARLY point out what it is you want me to extend/vote for you on. I do flow (reluctantly) but if you start spreading I will put my pen down and give you a nasty look until you stop, SO DON'T SPREAD. Also please make jokes if you want to. I know these topics are serious but its refreshing to have a light hearted debate and just enjoy yourself. Also I DO NOT FLOW CROSS SO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER ARGUEMENTS YOU MAKE IN CROSS YOU BRING UP IN YOUR SPEECHES. Now for event specific things....

Policy- I LOVE K'S! If you run a K I will vote solely off of that (not actually but I still love them <3) unless you lose the K, then in that case L bozo. I am not a fan of PIC's so if you are going to run one you better have a very good explanation as to why your PIC wins.

PF-I am a bit iffy with prog debate, and since I competed in policy I know the basics of prog debate but not to the extent at which most VPF competitors are using it so, if you intend to use prog, please make sure to explain thoroughly.

LD- this is an event? lmao

BQ- mother I crave v i o l e n c e.

General Speech Paradigm

I usually give time signals for every minute, thirty seconds and then from 10 all the way to 1. You get a 30 second grace period so I will give a fist once you have passed the 30 seconds of your grace period. Now for the specific events...

IMP- I like to impromptu semi-collegiate style so like you will still have a choice of 3 topics but ill only have 1 competitor in the room at all times.

EXT- I will most likely follow the same format for IMP (even though EXT already does that but)

my email: robertthehistorybuff@gmail.com (for email link chain)

I debated for 4 years in high school, I have been judging LD/PF for 11 years and coaching LD/PF at Fenwick High School for 8 years. I will be evaluating each team based on their clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

In general, I am open to nearly every argument; with a few exceptions/variations.

1. Theory - I am fine with it. I find some theory debates to be quite interesting, however I will not vote on frivolous theory, especially not on disclosure theory.

2. Kritiks - In general, I think they can be very educational arguments. However, I am not a fan of performance arguments. I just do not enjoy them. Plain and simple.

3. Plans/CPs/Disads - Even though I believe these often stunt an otherwise incredibly intellectual atmosphere, there are exceptions to this rule. If you can run a good plan, I can see myself voting on it. As for counterplans—no PICs. Please. I do not find that these make for a decent debate round.

4. Voters Issues - Please have them.

Speed is okay but I will say “clear” if I cannot understand you or if you are speaking too
fast; because if I can’t hear it, I can’t flow it. Be intelligible and make sure to signpost

PF for 4 years at Bronx Science (Bronx Science MY), freshman at Cornell, coach for Bergen County CM and Awty ZZ

TLDR: pls warrant and if nobody does GOOD comparative weighing I'll prefer the least mitigated link first and then the largest impact. At least be good at frontlining if you can't weigh.

For TOC: I’m gonna have a much higher threshold for extensions, warranting, and comparative weighing than I normally would throughout the season, teams have gotten WAY too lazy. also genuinely don’t care what you read, j send all docs.

add me to the email chain - vy.debate@gmail.com - send speech docs and I'll boost speaks

spec notes on how to adapt to me:

• "Fast PF speed" is fine - faster then 210wpm is when I start to have issues. Spread at your own risk bc tbh I suck at flowing off speech docs and will probably make a worse decision and be annoyed if you make me do so
• I hate blippy weighing without warrants. Don't just say "I outweigh on timeframe" tell me why, make it comparative, and implicate it on the flow. Bad weighing makes me sad
• Link in's need weighing on top of them or else they just function as a piece of non-comparative offense
• Extend warrants, not card names. chances are if you just say "extend John 19" I won't remember what John said and I won't flow it
• Second rebuttal MUST frontline turns, and terminal defense if you want to go for the arg later
• If you want me to vote on an Impact turn or rebuttal disad/adv it also need to have an impact and be weighed
• I won't listen to cross unless someone says smth funny, then ill tune in
• not having actual cut cards on hand = .5 drop in speaks

my rant about "probability" weighing
If you read new defense in summary or final and label it probability weighing I am docking ur speaks and will be saddened. A lot of probability weighing just isn't real weighing its just defense in disguise- any conceded defense or argument is 100% true, at that point any "probability weighing" is just some sort of mitigatory or terminal defense so just implicate it as that instead and do it in rebuttal.

non-subs debate
Im good to eval any theory or K debate as long as speeches aren't spread (seriously don't trust me to eval a K round if I have to read everything off docs), yes trix are fun but like pls don't in front of me

most importantly, have fun! let me know how I can accommodate you in round in any way

I am a parent judge and have judged more than thirty rounds in several tournaments since October, 2021.

I favor clear structure, comprehensibility, and the quality of arguments over quantity and complexity. I am not a subject matter expert on the topics you are debating. So I will listen to you very intently, take notes, and do my best to render a fair and balanced decision.

Please number your contentions so that I can keep better track of them, as well as using your opponent's numbers in your rebuttal. In judging, I will consider the clarity and organization of your case, whether and/or how well you respond to your opponent's case, the impact of your case vs. the impact of your opponent's case as well as your professionalism, clarity of speech and sportsmanship.

I really care about final summary and final focus which can give you another chance to convince me to vote for you. I am not a native English speaker, so please speak clearly and slowly. If I can not understand you, I cannot vote for you. I am not a professional judge which means that I don't know the detailed technique debate skills. I only vote for the team who can make me understand and convince me by their well organized and thorough arguments. 

By the way, I don't like the very aggressive attitude. Please be polite and respectful to your opponents. 

Have fun and good luck!