Like to stay in the current state of affairs and like public forum debates given the relevance. Been judging PF style debates for over a year across several tournaments

Hello!!

While I have experience in debate, most of my career is Speech oriented, so I HIGHLY value signposting and clarity! To me, what wins the round is IMPACTS and clear, logical arguments.

Happy debating!

Hi, my name is Abhishek. I did congress all 4 years of high school. Now, I'm a freshman at UPenn Wharton studying Legal Studies and Business Ethics. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me atbhagatabhi221@gmail.com.

Congress:

I weigh arguments over speaking. HOWEVER, your speaking must be good enough to the point where I can coherently understand your argument. If you give good speaking but a really bad argument that's out of the scope of congress (ie. this is a resolution so it is vague and therefore fail) will get dropped. But if you give bad speaking but a good argument, you'll be in the middle 50-60% of the ranks. If you give GREAT SPEAKING and GREAT argumentation, that will be the top of my ranks.

Questioning: I want to see that you answer questions well. Also, ask a lot of questions as a competitor. This will be part of my ranks. I want to see you being engaged.

PO: You will start my rank at 5 and then move up or down based on how you do.

I have a FORMULA to ranking congress.

I'll rank your speaking on a scale from 0-3. I'll rank argumentation from 0-10. I'll rank questioning from 0-3. Creativeness of Speech: 0-2 (although if its not creative im likely to just not give you anything for this metric). Then I'll add it all up and rank you based on who has the highest score. This total adds up to 18 points. So then I base ranks on that. Notice that it is mostly based off argumentation – that's where you can collect the most points. That's because I think argumentation is the most important thing in CD. You can have great speaking, but if your argument is bad then it probably won't take you too far.

Extemp:

I value speaking a lot here but you should also answer the question. Honestly really similar to my congress paradigms; only difference is I value speaking and creativity more than content. But your content should still be good.

BE RESPECTFUL!!!!

STEPHAN BROOKS (updated 01/10/24)

Owner & Director of Brooks Debate Institute in Fremont, CA (2018-Present)

B.A. Communication Studies @ San Jose State University (Class of 2021)

FORMERLY:

- Assistant Debate Coach @ Miller Middle School in San Jose, CA (2021-2023)
- President & Debate Director @ The Brooks Academy in Fremont, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Archbishop Mitty HS in San Jose, CA (2013-2015)
- Debate Coach @ Mission San Jose HS in Fremont, CA (2012-2013)
- Public Forum Coach @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2007-2011)
- Competitor @ James Logan HS in Union City, CA (2001-2005)

I have been competing and coaching for 20+ years. I have experience in and have judged most formats of debate at every level: local, leagues, circuit, invitationals, TOC, CA State and NSDA Nationals, etc. I specialize in Public Forum and have coached the format since 2007, coaching the event at several San Francisco Bay Area schools and programs, including my own teams. I currently coach privately, and work primarily with middle school students these days. I was a communication studies major in college. Speech and debate is literally my life.

--

REQUIREMENTS & DEAL BREAKERS: (this applies mostly to PF and generally to other formats)

Do or die! Read carefully! Ignore at your own risk!

1. SPEED/SPREAD: No. I will NEVER tolerate it. I refuse. If you speak over 250 words per minute, you AUTOMATICALLY LOSE! I firmly believe that the whole point of debate as an activity to teach and train effective communication skills. Communication is a two-way street: sending AND receiving. If I (your target audience) tell you I HATE SPEED/SPREAD, and you GIVE ME SPEED, then I will GLADLY GIVE YOU A LOSS. Speed kills.

2. EVIDENCE:

2a.Paraphrase (especially in PF) is both OK and actually PREFERRED. I competed in Public Forum when the event was first created in the early 2000's as a response and alternative to circuit/spread LD/Policy. The short speech times of PF are by design: to encourage and challenge debaters to interpret and convey the meaning of vast amounts of research in a very limited amount of time. To have debaters practice being succinct. If you run "Paraphrase Theory" in a PF round, I will automatically drop you and give you zero speaker points in retaliation for trying to destroy my favorite debate event. Note: there should be some direct verbatim citations in your arguments- not all paraphrase.

2b. Email/Evidence Chains: No. I will NEVER call for or read cards- I think judge intervention is bad. It's your job to tell me what to think about the evidence presented in the round, yours and your opponent's.

2c. Warranting sources is required if you want me to VALUE your evidence. Last name and year is NOT good enough for me- your judges don't have a bibliography or works cited page of your case. If you say "Johnson 2020 writes" that means almost nothing to me. I want credentials/qualifications. If your opponent provides source credentials and you don't, I'll default to your opponent's evidence.

3. FINAL SPEECHES OF ANY DEBATE FORMAT: I REQUIRE 2-3 (no more!) clearly NUMBERED & articulated VOTING ISSUES presented to me at the end of your side's final speech. If you fail to give me voters, and the other side says "our single voting issue is that the sky is blue" I will vote on that issue. Please tell me what you want me to write on my RFD. If you keep debating the flow for the entirety of your final speech, you will lose. I repeat... in the final speech... Don't debate! Tell me why you win!

4.PLANS / COUNTER-PLANS IN PUBLIC FORUM

I've competed in, judged, and coached Public Forum since the event's creation. I am SICK and TIRED of teams who don't know specifically that plans/CP's are by rule "formulized" (debaters created it) and "comprehensive" (actor, timetable, funding, etc.)... if you falsely accuse another team of running a plan/counter-plan and "breaking the rules" when they didn't, you automatically lose and get 0/minimum speaker points. Play stupid games... win stupid prizes. I want to watch good debates- not a bunch of students crying wolf.

Further: the CON/NEG is absolutely allowed to argue that the PRO/AFF shouldn't win because there are better "general practical solutions" out there... so long as they can point to an example or proposal of one. If the CON/NEG formulizes their own plan, that violates the plan/CP rule of PF. If they argue "better alternatives are out there" and can point to one, that's fair game.

--

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

- I am a "POLICYMAKER" judge and like to tell all of the competitors that I judge that "I like to vote for the team that made the world a better place." That is my ultimate criteria for judging most debate rounds, but I am absolutely open to debaters providing, justifying, and impacting to their own standards.

- I am VERY STRICT about debating the EXACT WORDING of the RESOLUTION: Letter of the law! For example... if the resolution says "X produces more benefits than harms" then I believe we are debating a FACT TOPIC (not policy!) and I will vote for the team that presented the best benefits / worst harms. I will NOT vote for the team that treated the resolution as a POLICY TOPIC and spent the round impacting to a nuclear war in the future that hasn't happened yet.

- Strong impacts are extremely important to me in order to weigh arguments as offense for each side. If you don't impact, I don't weigh. Don't make me do work for you.

- I believe in "affirmative burden of proof"- the AFF typically gets the privilege of defining and last word (outside of PF), so they had better prove the resolution true by the end of the round. If teams argue to a draw, or if both teams are just plain terrible, then I tend to "default NEG" to the status quo.

- As a policymaker judge I like and vote on strong offensive arguments. On that note: I love counter-plans. Run'em if ya got'em. (PF: see above).

- I appreciate strong framework, fair definitions, and I love to be given clear standards by which I should weigh arguments and decide rounds. Tell me how to think.

- I am NOT a "Tabula Rasa" judge- Although I hate judge intervention, I reserve the right to interpret and weigh your argument against my own knowledge. I am fine with voting for an argument that runs contrary to my beliefs if it is explained well and warranted. I am NOT fine with voting for arguments that are blatantly false, lies, or unwarranted. If you tell me the sky is green, and I look outside and it's blue, you'll lose.

- I am NOT a "Games Player" judge. Leave that stuff at home. I want real-world impacts not garbage. I hate it when debaters make all sorts of crazy arguments about stuff that would never have a remote chance of happening in reality. Example: "Building high speed rail will lead to a steel shortage (sure...) and then a trade war with China.. (uh huh...) and then a NUCLEAR WAR!" (right...)

- On that note, I HATE MOST "THEORY" & "PROGRESSIVE" ARGUMENTS.I love it when debaters debate about the actual topic. I hate it when debaters debate about debate. Don't do it! You'll lose! Unless your opponent is legit guilty of a genuine fairness violation: moving target, fair ground, etc. Then I will absolutely drop them.

- I flow, but I do NOT "vote on the flow"- my flow helps me to decide rounds, but I'm smart enough that I don't need my legal pad and pens to decide rounds for me.

- Final speeches of ANY debate I watch should emphasize voting issues. Tell me how I should weigh the round and explain which key arguments I should vote for- DO NOT repeat the entire debate, you'll lose.

- Speed: I'm okay with some speed, but I ABSOLUTELY HATE SPREAD. You should be concerned with quality of arguments over quantity. If you're reading more than 250+0 words per minute, you're probably going too fast.

- I generally critique and disclose whenever possible.

--

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:

POLITICAL

- I identify as a Classical Liberal.

- I treat politics the same way I treat religion: like an all you can eat buffet. If I see something I like I put it on my plate, regardless of what party/group it came from, and sometimes even if it clashes with my core beliefs/values. A good idea is a good idea.

- I voted for Obama in 2008, and stay registered as a Democrat in order to vote in the California primary. I made the mistake of donating to Bernie Sanders in 2016 and now the Dems have my email/phone number and hit me up for money every election cycle.

- I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang and the Forward Party. I may not personally agree with Yang on all issues, but I like him as a thinker.

- I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast/show during the week when I'm the mood for angry news and watch Bill Maher on Friday nights for laughs. I like to think I honestly have an ear for both sides and major political parties in the U.S.

COMPETITIVE

- I competed for James Logan High School in Union City, CA from 2001-2005.
- Trained in Policy Debate the summer before 9th grade.
- Went to VBI to learn LD summer before 10th grade.
- Took up Parli in 11th grade.
- Midway through my junior year I tried out this brand new debate event called "Ted Turner," which would be known as "Controversy" until finally becoming Public Forum Debate.
- Speech: IMP, EXTEMP, DEC/OI

Debate:

I vote based on organization. Your arguments need to get me from A to D, have good impacts that make sense and if you are claiming abuse you must be clear what was abusive. If shoes lead to death give me step to step as to why. I won’t do the work for you, I will know your speaks after the first two speeches but I look at the flow after the round to see how the over all round went. If your case doesn’t make sense on my flow then you may be dropped. Persuasion is how the other processes what they hear you say, not what you think you said.

IE:

Limited Prep:

Origination, clear follow through of how each point ties to the topic and attention getter is how I weigh the speech it’s self. Knowing your walk, time management, eye contact and good projection is what I expect the speaker to show.

Everything Else

If you do not have cards then be memorized. If you are not then be on cards, you can be a great speaker on cards but not on a minute long of a 9 minute speech. At least practice your walk, eye contact, projection and body control. You might be ranked lower for being on cards but I cannot give you the 4 or 5 if I hear a minute.
If your character is supposed to make me cry, then make every cry, make me angry make me what ever emotion your character is expressing so I can feel your message through your performance.

speak clear, speak loud and be bold. I purposely sit in the back because you need to own the room and have everyone be involved in the work you put into your piece.

Thank you for taking the time to check my paradigm. It means you are invested in your next round of debate/speech!

I have done LD, POLICY, and PARLI for debate, DI, POI, OO, and SPAR for speech. Hence, I have a good amount of experience in both realms.

For Debate:

1) I would appreciate it if you could make good summaries of your speeches during Impact Calc + world comparison + etc. Judges have the same amount of brain cells as you, meaning, if you don't repeat it, they may forget it.

2) It's fun to attack opponents' points, but it's not cool to attack your opponents. You can say, "Their argument promotes racial stereotypes," but you cannot say, "My opponent is a racist." Making your opponents feel bad about themselves won't win you the debate; making them look less intelligent will.

3) Be respectful.

For Speech:

1) Please clap when your competitor finishes their speech.

2) Avoid opening laptops or cellphones during another person's speech. This is a speech round, not a debate round where you go online and check your sources.

3) I know speech is so much more subjective than debate. I promise I will do my best to extract my personal experience from my evaluation and focus solely on your blocking, cutting, and clarity.

Have fun!

See you in your round! (੭ु≧▽≦)੭ु

I am a parent judge. I had some debate experiences in the past and I have also given many speeches to a variety of audiences in the past. It is important to ensure your arguments are sound, relevant and coherent. In addition to elaborate your arguments with evidence, ensure to address your opponent's points clearly and logically.

Speak clearly and in a reasonable speed.

Be on time, and dress appropriately.

Show respect to each other.

and finally, relax and have fun.

I look forward to seeing you at the tournament.

hey! I debated LD at Oak Park High School (2018-2022). I currently debate british parli @ usc.

preferences:

logically explained and warranted argumentation please. weigh comparatively & metaweigh

i'm a non-intervening judge. unless you say something blatantly false, if you have evidence and mechanize well, then i'll buy it

please stay in the 150-200 wpm range. you can send me the doc if you would like (esp if you spread). however, i would prefer if you just read a shorter case

be nice during cross & don't speak over each other, especially if we're online

signpost, signpost, signpost

don't just tell me to "extend Johnson." tell me what Johnson is & why it's important & why it should be extended

i primarily debated traditional LD, so unless you really want to run a K or run theory, explain it like you would to a lay judge. no tricks pls

be nice and you'll get good speaks!

Hello all, my name is Ashlie.

I make my decision based on the speaker who best: formulated logical arguments, extended their arguments, and responded to their opponent's arguments. The language used in the round should be comprehensible. Make sure to define key terms. I prefer clarity over speed, if I don't understand what you are saying because of how fast you are speaking, that means I am not writing it down.

During cross-examination, I am aware there will be clash and I expect respect amongst each other. My decision on who wins the round is on the speaker whomade the best arguments, not the most aggressive or loudest speaker.

Please time yourselves. I will be taking time and notify you when time is up, but timing yourself is a great skill as you can determine how much time you have left.Be mindful of the time, if your time is up. I will allow you to finish your last sentence but do not continue.

All in all, I am excited to judge your round!

Remember to be clear and state uniqueness, solvency, and impact of the policy/resolution. Take a deep breathe and show me all the hard work you have put in.

I like it when the students are self-sufficient, and on time. Meaning they are organized, don't speak fast, and are organized, they are able to keep track of time on their own. Have fun debaters!

I have limited experience with speech and more experience with IPDA debate.

Emotional expression, clear diction, and confidence in performance will indicate a winning speech for me.

I am open to bribes. Cash or snacks from Ranch 99 only. Preferably cash so I can buy said snacks at Ranch 99 myself. My views are aligned with Aswin Surya.

I'm an interprer who has done debate for many years, but only to fill my requirement to be on the team. In other words, I know the events but not the topics so please explain any info that is relevant to the current topic. For everyones sake, please include a bRiEf OfFtiMe rOAdMaP.

good luck and have fun <3

Dougherty Valley '19 | UC Davis '23 | keshavharanath@gmail.com

I competed for 4 years in mainly Circuit Congress and Extemporaneous Speaking but I have also dabbled in Impromptu.

CONGRESS PARADIGM:

For Speakers:

In a Nutshell: The more memorable (for better) that you are, the higher you will rank.

Congress is a debate event. Unless you are presenting an authorship or sponsorship speech, clash/refutation is a must. I believe that the later you speak in round, the more important refutation becomes. This doesn't mean that you have to refute all minor and major arguments. Rather, the later you present in round, the more I think you have the burden of selectively and strategically refuting. I am a big fan of speakers who crystallize near the end of the round so if you are speaking last or near last, a good crystallization speech is a solid path to getting a higher rank.

When presenting evidence/analysis, a good rule of thumb is to explain relationships as articulately as you can. It is your job, not mine to ensure that your speech makes sense. If I can't understand the logic in your arguments, I won't spend time to try and figure them out. Hard evidence (statistics etc.) from reliable sources is always preferred to anecdotal evidence.

Good one-liners and rhetoric are always appreciated :)

Be as aggressive as you want. I will never judge your speaking style as being too "emotional" or sappy - I care far more about what you are saying than how you are saying it. Just remember that being aggressive does not entail insulting people straight up to their faces.

TL;DR - If you make it easy for me to give you the 1, I will give you the 1.

For Presiding Officers:

If you are fast, fair, efficient and don't make any major errors, you are guaranteed a top 5 rank. If you are exceptional, you are guaranteed a top 3 rank.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM:

I'm not super experienced with PuFo but have judged a few rounds before. Here is my take:

Make sure your arguments are clear and have strong links and properly cited evidence. I do value presentation heavily when evaluating speaks, but will also factor strength and creativity of arguments.

Hi everyone!

I am judging for Dougherty Valley.

Here is how I judge:

Number 1: Don't talk fast and do not spread. Be loud and clear so I can make proper notes.

Number 2: Please be polite, don't scream at your opponent.

Number 3: Please provide a definition and make sure to explain everything you say clearly.

Number 4: Make sure to give an off time road map.

Number 5: Quality over quantity

Number 6: Offense over defense

Number 7: Weigh properly, impact is critical

Number 8: Probability of your argument is also key for my ballot

Number 9: Look professional

Number 10: Have fun

Treat me as a flay judge, I'll be flowing but I'll also be noting your presentation of arguments, confidence, and assertiveness. 

I did PF for four years in HS but competed more regularly in college on the IE Side (public address and limited prep). 

Given my background in speech, I’m not the best with speed. Organization, road maps and structure are important for me. 

Have fun and be respectful of your opponent! 

I've never debated, but I have judged quite a few tournaments at this point. I appreciate debates where the participants take time to speak clearly and reasonably slowly, so that I can hear what they are saying. On that note, I also appreciate debaters who don't speak over others, exercise kindness, and who really make an effort to consider and address other participants' input. Two sided discussions are always more fruitful than monologues that ignore each other. Lastly, I love when participants are mindful of the ways that history has shaped class, race, disability, and gender issues in our society today. Marginalized people and their histories deserve dignity, and a place in all of your discussions. Looking forward to hearing what you all have to say!

-Judge Kabang Lauron

I am a new parent judge who is interested about speech. I watched some TED shows. I will use may fair and consistent grading system, ensuring that all competitors are evaluated equally and objectively. I will approach each performance with an open mind, recognizing that each competitor has unique strengths and weaknesses. I resonate with inspiring and passionate speech. So, please don't hesitate to show your understanding of different topic, any ideas will be respected. I understand middle school speech is more for educational purpose. I highly encourage you to show the true self. I will be a good listener and provide my feedbacks.

I founded Able2Shine, a public speaking company. And I have only judged a few debates this year but love the activity. And I want a clear communication round with no speed.

For email chain: yilin@modernbrain.com

1. I did not compete in speech and debate but have been involved in speech and debate since 2016. I’ve Judged and watched a fair amount of rounds, mostly in speech, with some in Congress and PF. Also judged a few rounds in LD and other form of debates.
2. Speech and debate are such amazing activities, enjoy yourself and do your best!
3. Please be respectful and kind.
4. If you see me in a speech round, know that I care about authenticity, evidence, creativity, and presentation.
5. If you see me in a debate round, please don’t spread, and be clear so I can understand you. Tell me where I should be flowing. Tell me why you are winning. Tell me why should I vote for you.
6. Have FUN!

I am a lay judge and would appreciate if you could share the speech doc before start of the debate.

Mia MW

I do PF, LD, Congress.

Dont lie. Entertain me.

Don't be racist, homophobic, or sexist. Other than that be as sarcastic as you want, I love an aggressive round.

don't be boring

Don't sacrifice content for speed

Varying volume levels (don't do one single boring tone)

Overall do your best to win. Good luck.

Hello! I'm a college student who formerly competed in forensics for two years in high school. I used to do Original Oratory and Original Interpretation, as well as editing others' scripts. I've spectated debate rounds before, but the bulk of my experience is with speech events. 

Before anything else, keep etiquette in mind. Listen to your fellow competitors and treat each other with respect.

For speech, I will be looking at the content you present first and the cohesiveness and flow of your script second. Any person watching your event should know what your message (or takeaway) is at the end of the round.

Blocking, use of props (if applicable), enunciation, volume, and so on are also important. When it comes down to it, though, it will be those three things in particular that I will be able to give the most feedback on.

For debates, I will be looking for a traditional debate. Roadmaps are highly encouraged, no spreading, and make sure to signpost. I will be flowing during the round. Again.. no spreading.

No matter the event type, I will be taking notes as you present and listening actively. This is so I can give you the best critiques and comments possible on your ballot. I look forward to hearing what you have to say!

add me to your email chain!

>> email amariepaneda@gmail.com

I do speech events at Leland HS.

I've been doing speech and debate since middle school. I am more comfortable with judging speech events, but I have judged debate events, mainly PF. I will be flowing. I am pretty inexperienced regarding technicalities, so treat me like a lay judge. I enjoy cross, so make that count! Most importantly, have fun.

UPDATED: 4/19/2023

MAURICIO PATINO

Western Kentucky University

My background:

• I started competing in forensics in college, have no middle or high school speech or debate experience.
• I have judged online debate before, but never in-person.
• I am currently a speech competitor at WKU going onto my senior year with very little debate experience.

The Basics:

• I like to be able to understand the arguments, so speed is fine, but keep it reasonably paced.
• Logical reasoning and sound argumentation guide my decisions, if I fail to make the connection between your arguments/your case/your position, I will likely not vote for you.
• Key word is connections. Help me understand how you reach your arguments. If I have to do mental gymnastics during your speeches, it won't weigh favorably for you.
• K debate is fine with me, again, just make sure your arguments make sense in the context of the debate.
• Last speeches are very impactful for me, so please be clear about why you think you won.

General Approach to Judging:

Please be respectful to your opponents in your round. I dislike when debaters resort to taunting or condescension during the debate. Of course, you can be impassioned just make sure it doesn't come across as rude or like a personal attack.

Debate is more than a logistical thing to me, I like to be able to enjoy the debate. Whether that be through entertaining delivery choices, interesting arguments, clear organization, use of humor, etc. This may come from my speech background, but if I can enjoy it, I'm more likely to remember it and thus be persuaded by what you say.

Assuming time allows, I am always happy to give feedback. One thing about me is I will never lie to you, I will always point out what you did well, and if you would like, what you could have done better. I am very easy to impress, as I know debate is difficult to do, so I will always have something positive to say.

The better you help me understand where you are, the better. I enjoy organization and clarity, as mental labor/gymnastics will not weigh favorably for you. So please, tell me where you are on your arugment whenever possible, avoid jumping around, tell me what aspect of your opponen'ts case you are addressing. Don't just assume I know what you're directy refuting, so briefly summarize what your opponent said before addressing it.

Dropped arguments will weigh negatively for you. I'd rather you address it somewhat even if not that strongest argument than to just ignore it and hope I don't notice (I will). I enjoy ambitious debaters, I will always give credit where credit is due.

Speaker Points: I'm not the most generous in awarding speaker points. However, if your speeches are well-organized, well delivered, and overall effective, you can bet you'll score some good speaker points with me.

I expect all debaters to treat each other with respect. I value logically structured arguments. Use credible sources to support your claims, and make sure your evidence is relevant to the topic. Clear and concise communication is important to me. I prefer you articulate and avoid jargon.Speak audibly, and make effective use of gestures and body language. For winning criteria, I will consider the overall quality of the arguments, the strength of the evidence, the effectiveness of rebuttals, and the clarity of communication. Regardless of the outcome, I encourage all debaters to use this experience as an opportunity for growth and learning. Good luck to both teams and let's have a great debate!

I am a lay judge. - Judged only a few tournament

please dont spread I like to follow the flow

Keep your own timer

Email: lilmisswatticle@gmail.com
Hi, if you bring me food/drink and you might get an extra speaker point. I’ve been to nationals and I’m currently still debating. I AM NOT A LAY JUDGE!!! I flow the whole round and I wanna focus to give you good feedback. I will give you most of the feedback in round but I’ll still write some stuff on the rfd if I miss something. Put me on the chain!! I wanna see your evidence. Do not say PROBLEMATIC Stuff I will vote you down. Example: black people aren’t oppressed or anything racist. Don’t bore me to sleep I am really excited about debate and if you bore me that’s a problem. Be creative I wanna see your arguments come to life. I really like k debate, it’s fun to judge, I also think T is a voter if you run it correctly.

GENERAL

1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.

2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.

3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.

4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.

5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die.

6. Theory: Inround abuse > potential abuse.

7. Debate is a simulation inside a bigger simulation.

NEGATIVE

TOPICALITY: As far as I am concerned, there is no resolution until the negative teams reads Topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation resolves their voters, while also proving abuse. The affirmative either has to win a no link we meet, a counterinterp followed up with a we meet, or just straight offense against the negative interpretation. I am more likely to vote on inround abuse over potential abuse. If you go for inround abuse, list out the lost potential for neg ground and why that resolves the voters. If you go for potential abuse, explain what precedents they set.

FRAMEWORK: When the negative runs framework, specify how you orient Fairness & Education. If your FW is about education, then explain why the affirmative is unable to access their own pedagogy, and why your framework resolves their pedagogy better and/or presents a better alternative pedagogy. If your FW is about fairness, explain why the affirmative method is unable to solve their own impacts absent a fair debate, and why your framework precedes Aff impacts and/or is an external impact.

DISADVANTAGES: Start with impact calculation by either outweighing and/or turning the case. Uniqueness sets up the timeframe, links set up probability, and the impact sets up the magnitude.

COUNTERPLANS: Specify how the CP solves the case, a DA, an independent net benefit, or just plain theory. Any net benefit to the CP can constitute as offense against the Permutation.

CASE: Case debate works best when there is comparative analysis of the evidence and a thorough dissection of the aff evidence. Sign post whether you are making terminal defense arguments or case turns.

KRITIKS: Framing is key since a Kritik is basically a Linear Disad with an Alt. When creating links, specify whether they are links to the Aff form and/or content. Links to the form should argue why inround discourse matters more than fiat education, and how the alternative provides a competing pedagogy. Links to the content should argue how the alternative provides the necessary material solutions to resolving the neg and aff impacts. If you’re a nihilist and Neg on Presumption is your game, then like, sure.

AFFIRMATIVES

TRADITIONAL AFFIRMATIVES

PLANS WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS: If you successfully win your internal link story for your impact, then prioritize solvency so that you can weigh your impacts against any external impacts. Against other extinction level impacts, make sure to either win your probability and timeframe, or win sufficient amount of defense against the negs extinction level offense. Against structural violence impacts, explain why proximate cause is preferable over root cause, why extinction comes before value to life, and defend the epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical foundations of your affirmative. i might be an "extinction good" hack.

PLANS WITH STRUCTURAL IMPACTS: If you are facing extinction level disadvantages, then it is key that you win your value to life framing, probability/timeframe, and no link & impact defense to help substantiate why you outweigh. If you are facing a kritik, this will likely turn into a method debate about the ethics of engaging with dominant institutions, and why your method best pedagogically and materially effectuates social change.

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES

As a 2A that ran K Affs, the main focus of my research was answering T/FW, and cutting answers to Ks. I have run Intersectionality, Postmodernism, Decolonization, & Afropessimism. Having fallen down that rabbit hole, I have become generally versed in (policy debate's version of) philosophy.

K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively, "We know the problem, and we have a solution." This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

K BECOMING AFFS: Truth is bad. These affs point to complex differences that destabilize the underlying metanarratives of truth and power, "We problematize the way we think about problems." This includes Postmodern, Intersectionality, & Performance affs. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.

My involvement with debate started in 2011, my daughter joining the urban debate league. I assist with finding the evidence and practiced arguments . Three short years later I started judging. I've participated in both Public Forum and NSDA and policy debate.

The major areas I like to see are:

1) Clarity in facts and evidence

2) Presentation, tone and pitch

3) Professional engagement with opponent during cross

4) Negating or disagreeing with fact

I take very good notes and don't mind sharing feedback.

I am an experienced judge. I am happy to evaluate any arguments you want to run. I have been judging for 10+ years. I don't have any preferences and am excited to see you all approach the round you want to.

good luck have fun

don't worry

I debated from 16-19 doing PF and LD and coached a top 10 parli team in the 19-20 season. Davis CS '23. This is my fifth year judging and eighth year in the debate-space.

Three absolute essentials from my friend Zaid's paradigm:

1. Add me to the email chain before the round starts: vishnupratikvennelakanti@gmail.com. Make sure that the documents are .pdfs (so that I can open it directly within the browser).

2. Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

3. I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. I generally dislike how gamified debate has become - especially LD. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities. Progressive argumentation is a practice which big schools utilize to extend the prep gap between them and small schools. Hence, I believe that traditional debate is the MOST educational way to go about this activity.

Your job as a competitor is to make my job AS EASY as possible. The easier you make it, the greater the likelihood of getting my ballot. The less truthful the argument, the more work you have to do to convince me that your argument is true. I am tech over truth generally but it's a lot of work to prove factually untrue arguments. It's in your best interest to make sure your arguments are truthful because then you do a lot less work to convince me which makes the round easier for you to win.

I'll accept theory on the condition that there's real demonstrated abuse in the round(going over time repeatedly, spreading when asked not to etc). You should be willing to stake the round on theory - meaning that it should be the only argument that matters in the round. Running shells and dropping them is dumb. Breaking "norms" are not indicative of abuse - you cannot expect someone new to debate to be familiar with every norm on the national circuit.

I generally dislike theory shells like Nebel or hyperspecific/friv shells. You have to do a ton of work to convince me that bare plurals is actually abuse and not just an article written by some random guy at VBI - and there's a variety of other shells that this applies to.

Disclosure theory created by big schools to trick smaller schools into giving up their prep advantage on the wiki because it's "more equitable". A fundamental part of debate is developing the ability to think and interact with your opponents' case, not reading off pre-written responses that coaches write for you (which is really easy to tell when you're doing it and irks me).

Performance Ks, K Affs, RVIs and tricks are a byproduct of debaters seeking to win this "game" of debate so needless to say I don't really enjoy listening to them.

Ks are fine. If it's something unique, you need to explain it thoroughly. If I don't understand the K, I can't vote for it.

Spreading is silly. Slow and good >>> fast and bad. I don’t think being unintelligible on purpose is a very good strategy to winning debates in real life either.

Thus, my threshold for progressive debate is high.

Generally in LD, the arguments in which you will have to do the least work to convince me are substance debate and policy debate. Phil is enjoyable as well. But you need explain explain explain explain.

I don’t think off-time roadmaps are a real concept. When you speak, outside of introductions and niceties, it should be running on someone's time.

Framework debate is good but I'm not a huge fan of value/VC debate (because the analysis is really shallow - "they don't support my VC so they auto lose". If its not that then I really enjoy it. )

If I am judging PF and you run progressive nonsense, it's an automatic loss. PF is MEANT to be accessible to the public. My 90 year old grandpa should be able to judge a round and understand what is happening.

In all events, I don't really care about cross since it's an opportunity for you to set up future arguments. I usually know who's won by the second to last speech (1NR in LD and negative summary) so unless the round is particularly close I don’t flow the last speech (2AR or FF).

It will serve you best to think of me as a deeply experienced flay judge rather than a circuit judge.

I will reward smart arguments with higher speaker points. Weigh effectively and weigh often and provide warrants for your arguments. This is the path to my ballot! Just tell me how and why to vote for you, do not trust me to understand and extend your implicit arguments.

+ speaks for Lebron.

I’ve been Involved with Speech and Debate since 2015, although I’ve been judging almost nonstop since 2019. Available as a judge-for-hire via HiredJudge per request.

9.9/10 if you did not receive commentary on your ballot after the tournament, you (hopefully) would get my judge email on there instead.

I don’t currently operate from a laptop so my ballot speed is not ideal atm; I’m usually typing out paragraphs from a doc until the last allowable minute, but my timing is not the most perfect. You won’t always get a pageful but its my personal policy to give a minimum of 5 sentences. If you send over an email asking about your round; it might take up to 24 hours post tournament but I -will- reply back.

_____

Ballot Style:

Where possible I add timestamps to help students pinpoint exact moments in their speech that address the issue as noted by comment.it is a personal philosophy of mine to try never have less than 5 sentences on any ballot.

Debate Philosophy: I can comfortably judge parli, LD, PF, SPAR & Congress due to judging almost nonstop since the start of the pandemic. I don't have a lot of experience with policy debate as of this writing, I’m working on understanding spread speak as I do more tournaments. [current speed: 2 notches down from the fast verse in Rap God ]

I LOVE it when students are able to be fully themselves and have fun in a round
Debate Judging: I’m not the biggest fan of utilitarian as a value metric, but otherwise I try to approach the round as a blank slate. I like hearing both Ks & Traditional Argumentation however my rfd really depends on how you use them (or inverse thereof) in the debate.

Sportsmanship (like, dont lower your performance/ be rude on purpose, please) > Argumentative Cohesion & Organization > CX utilization & Clash > Framework Discourse > Delivery > Structural Presence, but I am a little stricter on citation~ doesn’t need to be the full date but it needs gotta be there

Congress: (also see above) but I like those who can flip arguments in their favor;You dont need to be extroverted to be PO, but POs should be attentive with overall energy in the chamber and facilitating ethical and intentional inclusion beforesilence becomes a huge issue in round, in addition to strict yet -visible- timekeeping.

RFD FLOW - I try to have at least a paragraph summary explaining my flow (sometimes it’ll be copy/pasted)

Speech Judging: I can judge any speech event across all levels!

I would sincerely appreciate if students could self time so I can focus on ballots.

(For those who have read all the way through, some free interp gems that will be erased in a month, besides the basics: storyboarding, stop animation, pixar’s “inside out,” samurai jack, sound track your pieces.)

Email chain: sophiaw1128@gmail.com

I did PF for four years, coached since graduating

flay --------> me ----------------------> ultra tech policy judge

Wear whatever you want, speak from wherever you want, doesn't matter

Default framing util, default weighing is highest mag first, presume first

Strike Guide:

Link spamming (10> in a case) and dumping frivolous progressive args will only hurt you

Trigger warnings are mandatory on sensitive/graphic content. Don't do anything violent/exclusionary. Clear and obvious violations to the average person that are pointed out = L20. Even if it's not pointed out you're probably not getting higher than a 25

Tech:

I judge substance better than I judge prog, keep that in mind, that being said -

Things that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Stock Ks, most frameworks ran in pf

Theory:

CI>R, DTA, no RVIs, text by default but up for debate

Should be read immediately after violation, depending on the situation (experience level, impromptu theory) I am OK with forgetting to extend interp or violation if there are no responses on it. Standards and voters need to be in every speech.

In messy theory debates with multiple shells involved. You must weigh in order to prevent me from intervening.

You can paraphrase or not disclose as long as you respond well to their respective shells. I don't mandate either nor am I biased towards those particular standards. I will also evaluate things like theory bad if you win it on the flow.

K:

Important: I will judge Ks using the mechanisms that doing pf has given me. Do not expect me to understand policy jargon or know how to implicate your literature properly. You know your own K best, so if you're going to real Ks please spend enough time telling me exactly how you want me to evaluate it. Otherwise it'll just be an uninformed ballot.

I am most familiar with stock Ks: fem, cap/sec etc, so if you're reading more niche K make sure to be extra diligent about implicating it.

Shells almost always uplayers the K, so you need to read counterinterp of respond to shells read, just weighing may not be enough (again depends on the K)

Things that I am not familiar with:

T, Tricks, High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy

pls no

Speed:

Send doc

Speaks:

Speaks are given based on strategy/content instead of rhetoric/fluency. I give 30s. My baseline is 28. I rarely go below that.

Speeches:

Constructive:

Just be clear, I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted

Rebuttals:

If you want to concede defense to kick out of turns on your case, or read your own defense on your own case to kick those turns (sketch, but fine), you need to do it immediately after the opposing speech which made those turns. Second rebuttal should frontline. if your opponents bring up weighing in first rebuttal it is okay to not address it until summary. I don't evaluate "no warrant" responses unless you give me counter-warranting, link weighing, or some degree of implication.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky and needs to be in every speech. That being said, the extent to which I'll tolerate blippy extensions is directly inverse to how much ink your opponent puts on said thing you're extending. At the minimum, I need link + Impact + implication.

Final Focus:

Be smart with ff strategy, easiest way to win me over as a judge.

Interact, weigh, go for the right things

Feel free to postround, it is good and educational. But please only do so if the round ends before 10pm, otherwise just email me

Long time coach with tons of judging experience across most events. California doesn't have OI, Prose, or Poetry so those would be exceptions.

Policy, PF, LD, and Parli you can run any argument you wish. However, you'll need to go slow and explain the position. "Politics Disad" means nothing to me....explain the argument. The default is probably for a debater to think I'm a slow judge or a traditionalist, and on some level that is true, but I'm willing to listen to most any argument if it's explained and warranted.

I competed in Speech and Debate for all four years of high school (first in Oregon, second in the nation baybee). I remember being in high school and almost crying because college judges were too mean, busy power tripping on memories of their glory days, and I strive to... not be like that. If you want oral feedback stay after round.

In public address I am looking for speaker fluency, engaging/unique topics, and cohesion of logic. In interps I look for strong characterization, cohesive emotional arc, cleanliness of cut, topicality and strength of introduction.

General Debate:

I will flow the round. Speed is fine, but if you are so incomprehensible that I am unable to flow what you're saying and I miss your points, that's on you. I generally vote on a combination of the flow, strength of argumentative logic, impact calculus, accessibility, organization and speaker comprehension. I value framing and persuasion just as much as the flow, and it is your job to tell me which matters more. If your opponent drops a contention, call it out in voters, or I will not use it as a deciding factor. If your opponent says something ignorant (racist/sexist/heteronormative/ableist etc.) call it out by critiquing the argument. I'm an ethnic studies major with a specialty in intersectional politics, if I determine something problematic has been perpetuated I will drop accordingly. Be civil to your opponents. carashamrock@gmail.com for the email chain

Signposting clearly will do wonders for making sure I'm flowing your arguments how you want them to be flown. Everything you are going to complain to your team that I missed on the van ride home should have been in your voters.1

Parli:

I believe that parli is meant to be accessible above all else. This means that your judges and opponents should be able to understand the meaning and importance of everything you say in your arguments with no previous experience in debate. If you're going to perm or run theory you should do so in a way that makes sense to the most layest of judges.

Since it is unlikely you are experts on any given topic I'd much rather see a debate centered around values with a weighing mechanism of "net benefits", "utilitarianism" or "cost benefit analysis". PICs are abusive and I will probably drop you.

Use questions to your advantage. I generally believe each team should take at least 1 question per speech, but you don't have to take more than 1. Don't let your opponents get away with more than 3.

Also? I hate policy rounds, and I specifically hate plans. Like you do you. But I don't like them. You can advocate for something but leave the budget, timeframe, and likelihood of it getting passed out of it. I would rather you debate the merits of specific ideas than hear a plan written with all of 15 minutes of consideration. Plans limit aff ground, if neg perms... well I'll be inclined to vote with that. I won't drop you for having a plan or anything extreme, but I will be annoyed and sad. God I hate plans, spare me. (I EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA hate it when neg provides a "counterplan" when the aff didn't give a plan. I don't vote on "counter"plans.)

LD:

For the love of all that is holy please no personal attacks on your opponent. Please please please pleaseeee be civil. Please.

Use cross to your advantage. How you use and respond to questions has a lot of power to affect my perception of you as an authority on the subject and as a confident speaker. In close rounds, strength of cross can be a tiebreaker.

PF:

PICs are still abusive. Signpost clearly, use questions to your advantage. See Parli and LD Paradigms and infer accordingly. Cross is for shady questions, not statements with a question mark. *I'm not going to listen to or consider anything you're saying if you are saying it by interrupting and yelling at your opponents.*

Policy:

How about you treat me like a lay judge and keep things excruciatingly simple :)

If you use the phrase "yee haw" to end one of your speeches I will take that to mean that you read my paradigm and will be more inclined to bump your speaks. :)

1 credit: preston bushnell

I like to see a lot of clash between arguments. I like it when competitors explain their argument and the impact of their arguments. I weigh heavily on the value criterion and voting issues expressed in the first constructive speeches, extending to the last rebuttal speeches. I do not like fast reading or spreading. I am OK with value debates, policy debate and philosophical debates.

I am a parent judge. I used to do S&D in high school (Arcadia HS) and have experience with FX, Impromptu, L&D, PF, Parli, etc. The fundamentals of your argument are important to me - clarity and conciseness of argumentation along with responsiveness to the key points addressed throughout the debate. Civility is of course, expected.

a few points:

• I am a flay judge.
• I flow on paper, so please speak with poise and do not spread
• a combination of rhetoric, structure, and body language win on delivery/the lay appeal
• on the flow side, I vote based on (1) collapsing. providing me with the clear/cleanest points to vote on in a debate will win my ballot-(2) quality + depth of your contentions. this means that I will highly value the link chains/impact worlds (whichever is relevant in the round)- and (3) dropped contentions. make it extremely clear which points your opponent has dropped/conceded (and why they matter!), as I will take these into high consideration
• when your opponent is speaking, please stay respectful
• if you want to communicate with your partner, please try to "look like you're talking at a whisper." what I expect/mean by this is to not look like you're talking normally at a normal volume- it can be distracting for both your opponents and the judges.
• instead, I really don't mind any other communication as long as it's out of the frame or make it look like you're whispering- simulating an in person tourney
• remember, each debate is a learning experience, not a symbol of how adept you are because so many other factors+ implicit biases go into each RFD.
• good luck!

Nur YILMAZ | Junior | Beverly Hills High School

Hello, there! I hope to ensure that a respectful environment is present during debates. I want to emphasize that it is vital to be respectful and understanding during debates. Having fun and learning from each other is top priority.