Hello, my name is Bella. Please use a medium conversation speed with clear words in your speech. I will pay attention to the comprehensiveness of your response to other's arguments.

Hello! I'm Stuart Beal.

First, a bit on my debate background. I did four years of pretty traditional traditional high school policy debate (competed almost exclusively on the UIL circuit in Texas). Now, I compete in American Parliamentary Debate and British Parliamentary Debate for Columbia University in New York City. (Most of the following information is related to policy debate, but I feel that my judging philosophy is better communicated through a more specific discussion of policy debate issues than it would be if I tried to generalize my philosophy to styles of debate I'm less familiar with.)

I've judged more kritiks than I've ever encountered myself in round, so when it comes to those types of arguments, I am slightly unfamiliar, but not in the slightest opposed to hearing them. Honestly, at times I think the fact that I have less exposure to k debate makes a lot of k arguments more convincing to me. Other than that, I will also say that I have less experience with super technical CP debate. If things get intense technique wise, the team that's able to more effectively explain to me what's going on is probably going to be the team that will win the argument.

Past all that, I have a very open judging philosophy in that I will value the arguments that you tell me to value. Even widely held assumptions like T/framework taking first priority because they're procedural arguments need to be communicated to me. If aff turns T and explains why topical AFFs are bad and neg doesn't respond, T will become an aff advantage. I will never make a team win because of some sort of base assumption about how policy debate works that I personally hold.

I make decisions based on world comparison, based on which world, aff or neg, is a better one. I'll do this comparison with the impacts and weighing communicated to me by both teams and I will only intervene to weigh arguments myself if there is absolutely no other way for me to evaluate the round.

In terms of the argument preferences I do hold, I like fun T arguments and sometimes get annoyed by CPs.

No onto speaking points. I will flow every speech in the round and would like to be able to flow without having to check the speech doc for tags and authors. Highest speaker points will be given to the speaker that forces me to check the speech doc the least amount of times. So, signposting really well and speaking clearly on tags and authors is the easiest way to receive high speaks from me. Additionally, passionate speaking and intentional/convincing delivery will be rewarded.

I will dock speaker points for unwarranted attitude. I'm totally fine with things getting a little petty and heated, but there's a line and crossing it will result in docked speaks. Also, in addition to being too prickly to the other team, if I catch any disparaging comments being made from one partner to the other, speaks will be docked.

Additionally, and this should be obvious, any explicitly harmful language used whether it be sexist, racist, ableist, queerphobic etc. will result in speaks being docked and tournament officials being contacted.

TL;DR - tech>truth, clarity in thoughts and in speech (do not spread), be logical in linkchains and among your arguments, weigh, no theory, K, etc.

Although I am a parent judge, this is my eighth year judging debate tournaments, so I am not new to judging. I will flow arguments and will vote off of the flow (I'll mostly do tech > truth unless the arguement is so obviously false that nearly everyone would agree without googling it). That being said, please do not spread, because I'm bound to miss some of your arguments (if it doesn't make it onto my flow, I won't be able to evaluate your arguement). It is your job to make sure that you communicate your arguements clearly and logically.

Please note:

- clarity, especially clarity of thought and logic, is more important than speed

- I will focus on the weigh, and whether you've proven that your standing argument(s)'s impacts are greater than your opponents. This means that as you go through your arguments (before you weigh), you must tell me what the impacts of your arguments are-- don't assume they are obvious, and I'm not likely to make them up for you. You can be creative about how you weigh, potentially including scope, magnitude, timeframe, probabilty, or a metaweigh, etc.

- I do not like off-topic/theory arguements that try to disqualify the other team. Debate the topic at hand.

- I appreciate roadmaps and signposting. I'm OK if the initial roadmap is off-time, but they really should be part of your speaker time. And be sure to continue to signpost as you address new arguments-- you don't want me to put your arguments on a random part of my flowsheet.

- Gov/aff does have the right to define terms, and I do give leeway for that. Don't abuse it though-- I really don't like having to judge a "definitions" debate, and if the definition doesn't allow a path for opp/neg to win, I'm voting with opp/neg.

- Warrant your arguments. Completely unsubstantiated arguments are hard to vote on, especially if rebutted by the opposing side. If both sides are unwarranted, I'll view it as a wash and it won't survive the round.

- And to quote Ryan Lafferty: Be charitable to your opponents’ arguments! I’d much rather you mitigate the best version of your opponents’ claims than demolish a heavily strawmanned version of them.

For PF specifically:

- I value warrants over cards. Tell me why your argument(s) make sense logically rather than telling me a card said so. I have faith that you can always find someone who will say just about anything (e.g.-- the earth is flat).

- Focus on the weaknesses in your opponents link chains rather than reading from a prepared block file.

- The clash should be obvious by the rebuttal speaches. Second rebuttal can start to frontline in addition to rebutting the prior speech, however they must respond to all offense (including turns) or else I'll assume the argument is conceded.

- I won't be on your email chain and almost always wont look at your evidence. It's up to you to convince me, rather than me determining whether the evidence is worthy. That being said, if someone asks me to look at evidence (e.g., in order to determine whether the evidence was represented correctly), I will.

Speaker scores are ultimately subjective based on impefect judging. For PF, in addition to the above, I'll also be analyzing the quality of the research in determining speaker scores. For Parli, broad background knowledge is a big plus.

Pronouns: he/him/his

History:

- Policy @ Montgomery Bell Academy: 2018-2020

- APDA @ Columbia University: 2021-Present

Email:

bcbozza@gmail.com

- Always (always) add me to the email chain!

General:

- I'm cool with spreading if you're debating in a format that spreads. I've debated policy. I reserve the right to say "clear" if I can't understand what you're saying, though—and to dock speaks if I have to do it more than once.

- Have fun with the debate! Debate is a game—an educational game, but a game nonetheless. I'm not going to decide rounds on "fun" (as some K debaters would have me do), but do remember that this is something that's meant to be enjoyable for all of us.

- Signpost during speeches. Throw in an "and" between cards. If you're moving on to a new topic, make it known. Messy flows mean I'll probably end up overlooking something you don't want me to overlook.

- Framework is everything. Your job is to give me something through which I should evaluate the round. In the absence of any really compelling argumentation (absolutely the worst case scenario) I'm going to fall back on framework.

- In any format, I'm cool with most args. Explain it well enough and I'll weigh it.

- BUT I'm iffy on tech > truth. If an argument just doesn't make sense—even if you have cards—it's getting weighed after everything else.

- (If you're in a format that uses cards): use your cards! Refer back to them, cite specific lines later, etc.; the more you engage with and explain your evidence, the more convincing it's going to be.

Theory:

- I really do not enjoy theory debates. Unless your opponent(s) engaged in some absolutely egregious violation of debate conduct, there's a very low chance I vote on your theory args.

- I'm not going to "automatically err Neg/Opp on theory" just because you say "automatically err Neg/Opp on theory." You have to give me a substantive reason to prefer your argument.

- If you read disclosure theory, and your opponent pulls up screenshots of the disclosure, I'm voting you down. Yes, this has happened.

Email Chain: ac5180@columbia.edu

Hi, I'm Annie! I'm a second year out of debate but still occasionally judge for Columbia. I'm majoring in financial economics with a secondary in computer science.

Since I'm not up to date with circuit norms, please slow down and explain topic-specific jargon. I'm a little hard of hearing lately, so I'll call "loud/slow/clear" as necessary without penalizing speaks. However, please note that I'll only evaluate arguments that are a] properly warranted b] I have flowed.

I debated for Harrison high school across three years (2019-22), qualifying to the TOC with four career bids and championing a couple finals bid tournaments. I also taught sessions @ VBI UCLA with Nick Smith and Marshall Thompson. I love reading idpol Ks, including literature on Asian-American, Black feminist, and Indigenous scholarship. Please substantiate your theory of power and explain your literature clearly-- I will not fill in knowledge gaps. I want you to be genuine with what you are reading!

I also genuinely enjoy mentoring and giving back to younger students involved in high school debate or research, so please feel free to reach out. Try your best to have fun! Good luck (:

Hi I am Malcolm. I went to college at Swarthmore. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me. I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before).

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 1/2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

PF Paradigm (updated for toc 2024):

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am EXTREMELY easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate the k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. The more important an argument purports to be, the more robust its explanation ought to be

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am increasingly uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure. I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Braudel, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. In short, Yes PoMo, yes german philosophy, yes politics of the body and pre-linguistic communication, yes to Atlantic History grounded criticisms, yes to the sea as subject and object.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

--

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging policy. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

---

Speech is cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines. I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me.

--

Respect is extremely important in the round, no ad hominem attacks, and don't spread—if you speak to quickly I will not be able to flow your argument effectively.

Hello, I’m a lay parent judge. Content is the critical aspect of how I score. However, if you speak too quickly your content will not come through clearly enough. Especially for PF, try to use almost all of your time, as someone who uses only a small fraction of their time (especially in PF, Parli can sometimes have ample time) often performs as if they have less to say. Also, I do not permit offtime roadmaps, they aren't based in the rules. If you wish to roadmap please use your allotted time. Many thanks!

Hi! My name is Grace, and I’m in my first year of college debate (APDA). I did parliamentary debate in high school. A few things:

No spreading. I will not be able to give your team the argument if I cannot figure out what you are saying. I am not flexible on this, and will give low speaks for spreading.

I am not a fan of debate jargon or theory arguments. Please try to keep your arguments straightforward, and avoid overly technical language.

I really prefer debates that stay organized, particularly if they are on the flow. No one enjoys messy debates, and it results in a much more productive debate if points are structured clearly.

The best arguments are the ones that are well-impacted. I especially appreciate speeches that clearly analyze major points of clash in the debate. I love good weighing, especially on magnitude/probability/time frame.

I will award high speaker points to debaters who clearly and passionately articulate their points. I especially enjoy it when multiple refutations are offered to a single point - take your opponent’s argument at its best, and refute that.

I absolutely will not tolerate any offensive language or content, and will give an automatic loss and low speaks to teams who violate this policy. I will also contact equity officials.

Please time yourself with a stopwatch, instead of a timer, so that you're not interrupted at the end of your speech. I won't penalize you for using a timer, this is just a personal preference.

Have a great round! Remember that this is a learning experience for everyone, be respectful, and enjoy the debate. :)

Email: gf2482@barnard.edu

I'm proud to say this marks my 10th year of judging Public Forum. Even though I've been doing this a long time, I still consider myself a "Mom judge," but don't despair. I will do my level best to flow the round competently.

Please give me your case in a simple, logical format and give me the reasons why I should vote for you. Please don't speak super fast, since that just makes my head spin, and I won't be able to follow your brilliant arguments as easily.

I always say, I'm okay with a little speed, but if you're talking so fast I can't make out what you're saying, that's not going to be good for you. I want to comprehend what you're telling me. If you feel like you're spoon-feeding me your case, I won't be insulted. You have plenty of flow judges to impress this tournament with fancy twists and turns.

One thing I will say is, If you don't extend an argument in summary, I can't weigh it at the end.

Lastly, please be professional and courteous to each other. No eye-rolling, tongues hanging out, general snottiness. Even if you think your opponent is on the ropes, I don't want to see it on your faces. Win with grace and class.

Hello!

A bit about me -

I competed in high school policy debate for three years so I am very familiar with the format and nuances. While competing in policy, I helped generally coach other speech and debate events. I now compete in college parliamentary debate.

For all debate styles: Respect is key. Make sure to respect your opponents and maintain a safe environment for the debate to occur. Any discriminatory behavior will not be tolerated and will result in a downvote. Speak confidently, fill your time, and try your best to be organized.

I can do speed but I do not enjoy spreading/spewing. My philosophy is if you are just going to spread, I might as well just turn off my sound and read your document instead because there is no actual "debating" happening (I won't but I will just be annoyed lol). If I cannot understand your arguments (due to the nature of their delivery) I cannot vote on them. Debate is about spontaneous argumentation, not about who can get the most words in any given amount of time. I will vote on theory arguments if presented sufficiently.

LD: I have general knowledge about traditional and progressive LD debate styles. I prefer evidence clash, more logos-based arguments, and good framing. That being said, as long as you have clear link chains/warranting your arguments with evidence, I will vote for them. Flex prep is fine if it is okay with your opponent. I will not flow it.

Policy: I am open to both traditional and progressive debate styles. I really appreciate good framing in policy as I believe, specifically in tighter debates, the framework can often play a major role. Make sure your link chains are solid and clearly signpost your arguments. I will vote for a Kritik if presented/debated adequately. Honestly, I am really game for whatever as long as you present/debate it adequately.

Good luck! I look forward to listening.

Hi! I did a lot of Congress and Worlds for over 4 years and compete in college APDA now. Basically, be super clear, do A LOT of weighing, and tell me exactly why I should vote for you. I'm not super big on theory and I need to see cards/evidence for your arguments.

Don't be rude! Have fun in the round!

Hi y'all! I debated for Valley High School for seven years and graduated in 2020, qualifying to both NSDA Nationals and TOC.

Bronx 2022 Update: I haven't judged (or thought about) debate in a while, so just keep that in mind. Go a little bit slower please, but everything below still applies. 

Email: animeshjoshi9@gmail.com

I don't flow off the doc, just a heads up.

General:

Tech > Truth.

Do what you want to do.

Here are just some miscellaneous guidelines.

1. Explanation usually matters more than argument content. As long as I can get a coherent warrant for an argument, and it's not blatantly offensive, I'm willing to vote on it.

2. I'm good with any type of debate and will evaluate every argument to the best of my ability. I read a lot of analytic philosophy as a debater, so I'm probably most comfortable with that style and would likely enjoy it when executed correctly. That being said, don't read something you're bad at just because I read it--it leads to bad debates that will make me sad. Watching debaters do what they're good at is super cool, and I think I'm comfortable adjudicating any style of debate. The one exception is probably LARP v LARP; I'm not very well versed in that. Disclosure theory is fine, but I don't like it at all, especially super tiny violations, i.e. round reports, open-source in cite box, etc.

EDIT: Also, not the biggest fan of osource being read against full text disclosure, but you do you. Also pt2, reading some sort of framing mechanism, i.e. ANY framework, is probably in your best interest.

3. Despite being from Valley, I'm not the biggest fan of tricks. Watching a bad tricks debate makes my head hurt, and they often seem like cheap shots (the way they're currently used in debate, they aren't always bad arguments). However, I do understand their strategic value and, when executed correctly, can be really enjoyable to watch. Cool and nuanced topical tricks > resolved. I'd prefer to not hear a 2AR on a garbage a priori when there's a clear substantive route to the ballot--that's all.

4. Even if things are conceded, please extend them. I have a low threshold for extensions, but there still needs to be ink on my flow with something resembling a warrant. That is, a 2AR going for defense to a 2NR on theory STILL needs to say "extend aff offense, it was conceded."

5. Independent voters need to be warranted. Tossing out a claim without any reasoning attached to it is not a coherent argument.

6. Weigh between arguments, please. Every type of debate gets messy whether it be theory, framework, or clash of civs. Weighing really helps me resolve these rounds.

7. I dislike people prescripting every speech. It seems to be happening more and more--it irks me. I will reward debaters who actually generate arguments and think of responses on their feet.

8. Have fun! Debate is super stressful and rough. Try to lighten up and enjoy some of the experience! But don't be exclusionary to somebody who isn't versed in circuit norms, is a novice, etc. Let's try to keep the space inclusive :)

If you have any other questions, let me know before round!

first time judge

Hello,

My name is Jaewon.

I am a parent volunteer with one year of experience judging mostly for PF and Parliamentary Debate.

I like:

- A moderate pace, not too fast or too slow.

- Solid and clear reasoning to support your argument, based on concrete evidence and simple examples.

- Delivering your argument forcibly and convincingly, showing your pathos.

I don't like:

- Reading your lengthy writing on a laptop screen with a monotonous tone. Effectively communicating means speaking passionately and persuasively to audiences.

- Ranting and yelling during CX or rebuttal.

- Beating around the bush. Get to the point of the argument and attack it.

Good luck to everyone!

1. I have not judged PF before, but have a lot of experience in BPs, Worlds and APDA formats and am very experienced in competitive debating in general. If you are using any PS-specific terms in your speech, please be aware of this and avoid acronyms.
2. I appreciate clear speeches (this includes audibility, REASONABLE speed, as well as general clarity of phrasing), as well as a cohesive team strategy (evident from good weighing, the way time is allocated in speeches etc.)
3. I'm not experienced with the PF theory arguments, so explain them clearly if you wish to use them. I would prefer if these are not run at all.
4. I pay close attention to the logical cohesiveness of an argument, meaning that if an argument is logically weak (e.g. symmetric harms/benefits or no clear mechanisms), I am likely to take this into account (and to a non-trivial degree) even if this is not necessarily pointed out directly by your opponent. If your opponent points out the logical flaw in your argumentation, it is of course far more disadvantageous for your team.

Hi! I debated World Schools format for two years in high school and some BP. As of 2022, I do college debate (mostly APDA and some BP).

I'm fine with most arguments, but here are some basic guidelines:

1. Don't spread–I can't give you the win if I don't understand you. Slightly above regular conversation speed is ok.
2. I've never debated in the US high school circuit so I won't understand any specific technical terms.
3. Be as clear as you can about your logical flow, weigh and tell me how to vote!
4. I'm not familiar with a lot of theory so it's probably best to avoid it unless you can explain it clearly to me in round.

Violating equity (homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc) will result in an automatic loss and low speaks. Feel free to email me with any concerns or issues regarding such behaviour.

Email: sm5332@barnard.edu

Have judged a few rounds, but not much experience. Stay organized and have good impacts.

Ok, I guess it is customary to first tell you at least a bit about myself. When my home needed repairs, I took a class at a community college. I learned to do my own wiring, plumbing and basic building. That wasn't my vocation, that was for fun,

STRUCTURE/ FORMAT: Follow the rules and tenants of the type of debate you are in. You have a topic, do not lose sight of that topic. Each team must have a framework that supports their position all on its own. Remember rules regarding introducing new arguments, cross-ex, ext. specific to your debates. These are not issues I should have to remind you of, but I will deduct points for.

CONTENT: Then, they can also refute the other side's contentions as well, but I don't like seeing a team wasting time pouring over their notes trying to find exact quotes to refute. Use your time wisely, make sure your contentions alone support your statements, then, you can refute your opponent. Make sure and look at the big picture, look back at your topic over and over, don't get tunnel vision on a single idea.

SUMMARY:I judge the totality of the debate, the quality of the issues presented, and who argued their position best.

Hi I'm Ananya! I debated LD in high school, so I understand the nuances and norms of the structure. Don't expect me to be an excellent judge for a highly nuanced technical debate. However, I will try my very best to evaluate any type of debate you'd like to have.

theory, Ks, etc are fine, just explain them very thoroughly. Spreading is fine and I'll call clear/slow if needed.

if u have further questions abt my judging preferences, feel free to ask before round or email me (ananyanatchukuri@gmail.com)

Parent judge, moderate experience with Parli and some PF, I maintain as detailed a flow as possible, truth>tech

(if there is jargon in this paradigm it is because my daughter actually wrote it while consulting me on the content, not because I understand debate jargon)

Speak clearly and at a reasonable pace (don't spread!), signpost, limit jargon, etc. (if I don't understand you, it doesn't go on my flow, if it doesn't go on my flow, I'm not taking it into consideration)

Just saying cross-apply this with (x contention) is not a valid refutation in the absence of an explanation

Clearly state and weigh your impacts, provide clear logical links, POO any rules violations

Not super experienced with Ks or Theory, it is likely best not to run it with me and if you do, you must explain it well and in detail

Be respectful to your opponents and me. I will give you lower speaks if you are not.

A big pet peeve of mine is when debaters tell me how to vote ("judge, you MUST vote government on this"). I'm sorry, I know it's just what you do in debate, but it's really annoying - tell me how I can vote, give me voting issues, weigh your impacts against those of your opponents, but please for the love of God do not order me to vote for your side. I'm the judge, I'm here for a reason, I'll tell you who won (after flowing the round and evaluating it to the best of my ability)

I did speech and debate in high school and college and love seeing all of you engage in it as I know what an educational and fun activity it can be. Above all, I hope that you have a fun, educational, and constructive debate and that I can facilitate that to the best of my ability. Good luck!!

Hey Everyone! My Name is Ijeoma, I've debated for Bangor High School for 4 years and graduated in 2020. I have qualified for NSDA and NCFL Nats.

Email: ijeomaobi7@gmail.com

General:Here's an overall guide to how I look at judging my rounds

• Warranting and impacts are imperative. The content of your argument should have a justification (warrant) and this is to help with not just the flow, but to help (me) after the round to weigh what both sides have presented to decide the winner of the debate.

• Do not be afraid to set up framework in your debate, I'm a big fan of framework. A guide as to how you plan to view the round is to your favor. Sidenote, I will allow roadmapping, but do not take this extra time to start laying down arguments, simply say how you'll use your time and go for it.

• Back in high school I was very centered on traditional debate, with a core on philosophical arguments. With that being said, at this time I don't have a preference for either style, and I'm pretty much comfortable with anything as long as it is 1) Coherent, 2) done well, and 3) builds your arguments. It's fine to use theory, just be sure you're confident that you're okay with running it.

• I am not a fan of tricks in args. I find them to be abusive, and it seems most sides have a difficult time responding to them.
• I need reasoning for your voter points. It's a must, else it's the equivalent of saying a statement. It will be flowed, but it will have no impact without an explanation.
• Prescripting arguments: This is somewhat okay, but I wish to see debaters at their best, thinking of arguments on the fly.
• I am not a fan of spreading. If you have a long argument, I understand, but if you're speaking at a million words per minute, I promise you that your opp. and I will not understand you one bit.

Any concerns or questions? Tell me before we start the round! I'm wishing you all the best!

Hi! I judged several rounds before and am a debater in college APDA myself.

1. Warrants and impacts are important, and I do weigh argument and style equally.

2. I prefer clear speech in a normal speed.

3. It would be appreciated if you have an off-time road map. But if you don’t have one, it’s fine!

4. It’s very important to have persuasive logic supporting your arguments.

5. Be respectful to other debaters and have fun!

A bit of background on me, if that matters to you:

I am currently a parli debater at Columbia University. I am originally from Saint Louis, MO where I competed in high school speech and debate in a traditional district for 4 years. My main events were LD and IX but I also dabbled in duo, POI, OO, and extemporaneous debate. At NSDA nats I was top 23 in LD in 2019, placed 2nd nationally in extemp debate in 2020, and placed top 60 in IX in 2021. In 2021 I was also the Missouri state champion in IX and a state semifinalist in LD.

Ok, onto my actual paradigm/thoughts about debate:

The only thing I am NOT OPEN TO is spreading. Quite honestly, I came from a traditional district where spreading is discouraged, so I never really learned how to "understand" spreading. Most of the time if I was in a round where someone was spreading I was just forced to read their speech on a doc. However, I kinda hated that, and I don't really think spreading meets the purpose of a public speaking activity. Thus, I would really appreciate if spreading were avoided. I can tolerate a faster-than-casual-conversation speed, but if you're speaking fast to the point where you need to take deep breaths in between sentences, I unfortunately just won't listen to your arguments.

Beyond spreading, I'm honestly open to anything! For ex, I think theory arguments are important to keeping the debate space equitable and fair so I'm open to them. Yeah. I don't really think there is anything else to add here; I genuinely am open to anything so long as it is literally not spreading.

Friendly reminder to weigh, please <3. If you don't explain to me why your arguments are more important/more significant than your opponent's, I at some point have to perform judge intervention. And I don't want to do that! So please weigh. Make it easy for me. Thanks :)

I’m a senior at Columbia, and can be reached at benjaminascherzer@gmail.com. He/him

I didn't do high school debate but I've done a lot of college parli - APDA & BP.

1% chance of nuke war weighed on magnitude x probability is a bad argument

Don't give off time roadmaps

Be nice.

LD

I can evaluate some progressive debate but you can’t rely on my already knowing the arguments - you need to make them clearly and explain why they come prior to the on topic clash. Or run a trad case

Tell me why your framework/value is better than your opponent’s, not just why it’s good in a vacuum

I did some debate in high school and now judge and debate APDA in college. Please be respectful in rounds. I prefer that you do not spread. I like clear signposting and lots of weighing to make my job easier. Have a great round!

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

Hello kiddos,

I have been in Debate for quite a few years. I am down to evaluate whatever arguments you want to run. I am not here to tell you what to run or how fast to run it. This is your show. I am cool with speed, ks, policy, procedurals, theory, or anything else you want to do. I wouldn't want you to think the round is about appealing to me, I think it is my job to evaluate the discussion you all have. Best of luck to you all.

hiii! im zimu :)

im from china and i did world schools, british parliamentary, and some pf in high school. now i'm doing apda and bp at columbia where im studying philosophy.

general stuff:

• im not the best with speed but i can handle anything just above conversational speed. you can watch some bp rounds on youtube to see what i’m generally comfortable with.

• my background(in both debate and philosophy) might sometimes make me take preference to rigorous logical reasoning over evidence. evidence is good insofar as you can explain how it fits into your argument. that being said, logic+evidence is still better than just logic or just evidence.

• however, if it comes down to one team with good logic and no evidence versus a team with good evidence but no logic(that’s to say, no explanation of how evidence works with the argument) then i’ll prefer the logic only team. This is not just because of my background but my belief in the function of debate. We’re here to be logical not to *just* list facts!

• ALL OF THIS BEING SAID, if you give me reason to do otherwise within the round(eg weighing or theory or whatever), id be more than happy to do as you say. this is just an outline of what i would presume if none of this is mentioned.

case:

• run whatever arguments, make the round interesting!!

• i think good links are important to a productive debate so try your best in explaining the logical sequence of your argument

• please weigh and tell me how to vote

Ks:

• i find Ks(and progressive debate in general) super interesting.

• but that doesn’t really mean anything. ive read not much theory(in the 20th century french people sense not the debate sense) and ive spent much more time on analytic philosophy recently.

• ive never actually formally learned about Ks so please explain Ks slowly if you do decide to run them and tell me why and how to evaluate them

• give a proper alt

theory:

• theory is amazing!! i think it’s very important for debaters to point out misconduct in round

• but same with Ks I will require you to be a bit more slow and explain everything

• no RVIs

the most important things:

• have fun!

• be kind!

if u want to chat or have any questions, im more than happy to talk!

email me at zz2804@columbia.edu