Tabroom.com

CHSSA Middle School State Championship

2023 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

Debate Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Zayne Abraham Athens Debate

Last changed on Thu March 2, 2023 at 11:50 AM PDT

I've debated for 3 years at Aragon High School.

Shortcut:

1- literally everything(phil, theory, tricks, K)

Top Level:

Go for whatever you want just make sure to explain it. I have debated in every way you can think of I have had pretty much any debate out there. People that have influenced my views in debate a lot are Jarvis Xie, Abhinav Sinha, Yesh Rao, and Jane Lichtman which means paradigmatically my views are pretty similar.

Stuff that will get you higher speaks:

AUTO 30:if you spend 30 seconds of the 1AC playing the homelander sample on "on time" from the metro album into the transition to "superhero" and begin spreading when future starts rapping
AUTO 30: getting sturdy preround
+1.0 spit bars preround like if freestyle and you spit bars +1
+1.0 talking bout how rap lyrics influenced your life.
+1.0: GETTING ME FOOD +1.0: Call your parents (or guardian or any significant role model in your life) before the round starts and tell them you love them
+0.5: Showing me screenshot evidence that you have followed LaMelo Ball on Instagram, reshared his most recent post on your story, and changed your ig bio to "1 of 1"
+0.5: Winning while ending speeches early and using less prep (let me know)
+0.3: Making fun of your opponent in a non-obnoxious manner
+0.3: Making references to goated shows in your speeches (Suits, the Office, etc.)
+0.3: Being funny
+0.3: if you add a producer tag before you start spreading or you got a creative card signature
+0.2: Drip (extra speaks if you didn't have to drop a rack on your fit)
+0.5/0.1:I will have my switch with me before the round:if you and your opponent both want to, y'all can play a 1-stock game - winner gets +0.1, loser gets -0.1ORyou can play individually play me - winning gets you +0.5, losing gets you -0.1
+0.2/-0.2:Feel free to play music pre-round:if I like the songs you play, I'll boost your speaks, but if I don't like them, I'll take away speaks (I won't deduct more than 0.2). For refernce, some of my favorite artists are Fivio Foreign, Pop Smoke, Drake, J. Cole, and lil Tjay, but I do enjoy my fair share of indie/alt, pop, k/c/jpop and disney music
Note that most speaks additions/substractions is subject to change based on the quality of your execution of the task

Arjun Agarwal The Golden State Academy

Aarnav Agrawal Athens Debate

Last changed on Sat March 25, 2023 at 8:23 AM PDT

Hi! My name is Aarnav (he/him). You don't need to call me "judge", just Aarnav is fine. I am a freshman and debate for Monta Vista High School in California. I've done trad LD for three years and this is my first year of circuit LD. I've only done LD, so this is the event I am most comfortable judging. If I'm judging any other event, I'll make sure to read up on the rules and figure out what the topic is before the round so I won't be completely clueless. I want to be on the email chain: aarnava2008@gmail.com. I don't really care whether you use email chain, file share, or speechdrop. If there's anything my paradigm doesn't address, please feel free to ask me before the round.

Trad/Lay Debate:

I did trad debate for three years, so I have decent experience with the style. If the round is a trad debate, read whatever you want and debate however you want. I will evaluate every argument from a technical lens. Make sure your arguments have a clear claim, warrant, and impact. Extend your arguments throughout the flow, and please don't go for every single argument. Choose one (maybe two) contentions to collapse to in the 2NR/2AR and explain why this matters the most in the round. For framework, make sure you have a clear value and value criterion. If you have similar (but differing values) like Morality and Justice, please don't spend a lot of time arguing about which one is better because they're both very similar. It's a waste of your rebuttal time that you can allocate elsewhere. At the end of the round, I'll evaluate the debate based on whichever side has the greatest overall impact under the winning value criterion. If there isn't a clear winner and/or extension of the framework debate, I'll evaluate the round using util (cost-benefit analysis). Off-time roadmaps are fine. I will be keeping time, but I would appreciate it if you also keep your own time. I probably won't say much in round, and before you start your speech, please confirm that I'm ready (I should be ready but it's good to confirm). I also don't care if you send cases or not.

Circuit LD Paradigm:

I am open to listening to any and all arguments made (provided they aren't racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.). I think the point of debate is to let debaters make whatever arguments they want instead of adapting to the judge and reading arguments based on the judge's preferences. The following shortcut is my personal comfort in evaluating different types of arguments, NOT my argument preferences. I will listen to any and all arguments you make. I do not "hack" for any type of position.

Quick prefs shortcut:

1 - LARP/Policy

2 - T

2 - Theory (real theory with actual abuse)

2-3 - Simple Kritiks (Cap, SetCol, etc.)

3 - Phil

4 - Complex Ks

4- K affs

5 - Tricks

5 - Friv theory (shoes theory, mask theory, etc).

For online debates: It's helpful if you record your speeches online. In case of audio/tech issues, it's good to have a recording of your speech for fairness purposes.

In-Depth Paradigm:

Tech > Truth. If something is dropped then it's true. However, you need to extend the argument and explain its implication. I will not do the work for you and if there isn't an adequate extension of the argument, I might not buy it.

I'm fine with speed. If you're going to spread, please send a doc. I do not flow off the doc but find it helpful so I can follow along. I'll say clear three times. After that, I'll stop flowing and your speaks will probably drop. You should probably start off slower and build your speed up in the first 15ish seconds. I wouldn't say I'm bad at flowing, but I'm definitely not the best, so you should probably slow down a little on taglines and author names. It's also helpful if you put an "and" or "next" or something like that to signify that you are done with the current card and are on the next card.

LARP: Go for it. These arguments are the ones I'm most comfortable evaluating.

Counterplans: Counterplans are cool. PICs are fine. Consult CPs are iffy and probably need a lot more work done to explain how they're competitive. I err on the side of functional competition over textual competition. If your counterplan only competes textually it will require a lot of explanation about how it's competitive.

Kritiks: I'm fine with these. I am not super well-versed with deep K lit, and only understand simple Ks like queerpess, cap, setcol, etc. If you're going to run something like Baudrillard, don't assume I have knowledge of what you're talking about because I probably don't. You'll need to explain the theory of power and the thesis of the kritik well if you want me to vote off of it.

Tricks: PLEASE DON'T SPAM A BUNCH OF BLIPPY ANALYTICS AND EXPECT ME TO CATCH THEM ALL. If this is your strategy, you definitely want to slow down to make sure I catch them all. Even if your opponent drops one and you extend it, there's a chance I might not have caught it in the first place. I only evaluate what's on my flow, not what is on the doc, which means you want to ensure I catch all of your tricks.

Theory: Theory is fine. I think theory shells of actual abuse are much better than friv theory, but I'll still evaluate it. Disclosure theory is fine, but if your opponent is a novice/lay debater, please don't. I'll vote off of it, but your speaks might go down.

Evidence Ethics: Please don't clip. If I catch this happening, it will be an auto-L. I'd prefer that any other evidence ethics challenges are read as theory, unless it's something completely egregious. In that case, I'll default to tournament rules first, then NSDA rules.

Misc: If your opponent is a lay debater, you can still spread, but make sure they're fine with it and maybe don't go 100% of your speed. You don't have to accommodate an insane amount, but please make sure the round is still accessible for everyone.

Non-negotiables:

Speech times
No racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. arguments. This will be an auto-L + the lowest speaks possible

Speaker points: Speaks start at 28.5 and go up and down based on how well you speak, argument choice, argument execution, 2NR/2AR collapse, etc.

GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!

Alper Altinel Hire

Last changed on Thu May 11, 2023 at 8:33 AM EDT

hey whats up guys

my name's alper, ive been debating for 4 years now

Mainly cal LD

FOR LD

Value/Value Criterion is very important - will only evaluate impacts under the framework of the round. If you win an extinction impact but don't tie it back to framework and why it matters, I WILL NOT VOTE ON IT.

Tech > truth, will vote on anything as long as you win the links to access your impact and then explain why it matters under your framework. (and i mean anything).

BIG EXCEPTION: I am a trad ld debater, I don't understand anything prog or circuit. You are welcome to try and read it anyways, if you do it well enough and clearly explain to me why I should vote for you then I will, but know that "first the interp, then the violation" means nothing to me.

Also I am fairly good with speed but only if you actually enunciate. To be safe, you should probably send speech docs if you are planning on going fast.

In cross just don't be annoying please. Perfectly fine to cut your opponent's off if they are rambling, but if they are actually answering your question let them talk. Being annoying in cross = less speaks.

Please please please actually have clash!!! Read arguments that directly tell me why your opponent's arguments are wrong/don't matter.

Weigh and extend in your final speeches. Don't be afraid to collapse on arguments you are losing - I think this is super strategic and a sign of a good debater. You should be telling me what arguments matter the most in the round, why they matter the most, why you won them, and how that means you won the round under the framework. Basically make it as easy as possible for me to vote for you; write my ballot for me.

If neither debater does this and at the end of the debate I'm left with a bunch of arguments with no weighing/connecting back to framework then I will default to evaluating the round like a speech round: best speaker wins. Please don't make me do this, I hate judging speech.

FOR EVERY OTHER DEBATE EVENT:

Don't run theory. I am a lay judge. I understand nothing except argumentation. Don't be annoying in cross. Be respectful and don't insult your opponents. Read arguments, clash, collapse, weigh, extend. Be good!

Funny:

higher speaks if you make jokes/good references in round
+1 speak if you tell me a good knock knock joke before round
-1 speak if you mention lebron james

have fun guys, debate is supposed to be fun! joke around, laugh, talk with your opponents and get to know them a little. lighten up.

Alex Bae Flintridge Preparatory

Avishi Baldwa Thornton Junior High School None

Nakul Banka Hire

Last changed on Wed May 10, 2023 at 11:20 AM EDT

Hello everyone reading this,

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

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

A couple things I like to see:

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

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

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

For a little about arguments that I like to see:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I'm judging LD:

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

If I'm judging Parli:

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

Final inspirational stuff:

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

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

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

Tiya Basilio Academy of Higher Learning

Cadia Benshalom Hire None

Neeru Bhan Thornton Junior High School None

Anindita Bhattacharya The Golden State Academy

Amit Bindal Joaquin Miller Middle School None

veronica bortz Egan Junior High School None

Akshaj Bozza Hire

Last changed on Sun May 14, 2023 at 8:17 AM PDT

Hi everyone, I'm a freshman at Bellarmine College Prep--I do policy right now. I've been debating for 3 years though -- did LD in middle school.I know nothing about any of the resolutions right now.

The bolded parts are most important. Please ask me any questions you have before the round starts as well.

akshbozz1234@gmail.com (he/him)

Speed is okay, but if you do go faster, PLEASE send a speech doc. I flow so speech docs are really helpful, especially online. I like to read the cards too. If you are going to read arguments on the faster side (i.e. counterplans, K's etc.) you MUST send a speech doc--otherwise it'll be harder for me to evaluate it. Theory arguments are fine if you actually explain it (don't throw terms around--your opponent might not know what they are)--I'd recommend keeping the debate relatively lay though.

Debate rules:

Don't cheat prep -- start your speech within 5 seconds of stopping the prep clock.

If you exceed the time for the speech, I will stop flowing and will probably deduct speaks -- TIME YOURSELF

My debate preferences:

I'm usually tech>truth (unless the argument is really bad) but you can group related args in refutations. I don't vote on blasphemous arguments (i.e. -ism/-phobia good, death/extinction good etc.)

I like evidence debates--if one card says one thing and another says the oppositeEXPLAIN WHY 1 CARD IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER(author quals, recency, warrants, etc.)

DO NOT HAVE NEW ARGS IN FINAL REBUTTALS -- tell me why you have ALREADY won the debate and why I vote for you

SIGNPOST!!!! (please respond to the arguments in the order the other team presented them in) -- really helpful in flowing

Try to preserve an overall big picture of your aff/neg -- each argument should lend itself to this big voter issue.

I enjoy good CX's and will flow any concessions -- killer CX = good boost in speaks.

For all events:

CLARITY: especially in online, please have good enunciation. Blitzing through contentions doesn't mean anything if I can't understand it. I debate myself so speed is okay but be mindful of the online environment.

RESPECT: don't be discriminatory. You can be aggressive without being disrespectful.

Please actually clash with opponents' arguments -- don't have pre-written generic blocks for your case.

LD specific:

I'm pretty well-versed with LD, but I know absolutely nothing about this year's resolution.

Make sure to slow down on value and value criterion (it'd be sad if I missed those). Make sure your contentions actually tie back to this overall framework.

I like framework debates; explain why one value outweighs the other. If the values are the same, make sure you tell me why your criterion is better than the other's.

PF/Parli/Other debate events:

Treat me like a parent in these cases. I will know nothing about the topic/rules/format. Speed is okay but I'm not well-versed with the debate format of these events, so don't throw around terms that are specific to them.

DO NOT READ NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE FINAL SPEECHES -- I will not consider them. Extensions/refutations of already established arguments are (usually) fine.

How to get good speaks:

I'll give good speaks for a killer CX -- actually get logical tensions in the case, not a reiteration of it

Debates often get really boring, so making me laugh here and there gets good speaks. Don't be disrespectful or give a joke speech though.

CLASH --the most important. Actually refute the opponent's specific args instead of generic blocks. Having good clash is what debate is all about--actually get close with the opponent's case.

CRYSTILLIZATIONS -- especially in rebuttals, clear up a debate. Explain to me your big picture and refute any major arguments remaining.

Precious Braziel BASIS Independent Fremont(HS) None

Pranav Butaney Blach Intermediate School

Holden Carrillo Westridge School

Last changed on Tue April 18, 2023 at 6:11 AM PDT

Mira Loma HS '22 | UC Berkeley '26

Email: holden.carrillo@berkeley.edu

I competed in PF for 3 years, mostly on the national circuit, and had an alright career. Just finished my first year of parli at Berkeley, and won NPTE.

Public Forum

TL;DR:

I'm only a year removed from the circuit, and from what I've heard things are rapidly getting more tech. That's fun and exciting, but there could be new norms I'm unfamiliar with? Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and lots of weighing will take you a long way. Respond to everything in 2nd rebuttal. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round, and I'll do my best to adapt to you. Debate is a lot more serious than it needs to be.

Constructive:

Speed: Send a doc, even if you're going slow. If you send a doc, any speed is fine. If you don't, don't go faster than 300 wpm, anything under shouldn't be an issue.

Evidence: If practiced correctly, I'm cool with paraphrasing (I paraphrased in HS), but don't get it twisted. I'm still down to vote for any evidence based shell or IVI, including paraphrasing. Also add me to the email chain pls.

Cross:

I'll probably be half listening to cross, so I'll never vote off of anything here unless it's said in speech. However, cross is binding, just make sure someone mentions it in a speech. If both teams agree, we can skip any crossfire and have 1 minute of prep as a substitute.

Rebuttal:

2nd rebuttal must frontline everything, not just turns. Advantages/disads are fine, 4 minutes is 4 minutes, but my threshold for responses will increase if you implicate them to their case. Blippy responses are tolerable but gross, I'd like it if you weighed your turns and your evidence when you introduce it.

Summary:

Extensions: I think that extensions as a fundamental idea is really silly, and I don't really understand why PF cares so much about them. While I do have a threshold for extending, that threshold is very low so the only time it would be a good idea to call out your opponents on their extending is if it's literally nonexistent. However, this doesn't mean that you can be blippy in the front half, and this doesn't mean that defense is sticky. Unless your opponents completely dropped their argument, dropped defense still needs to be mentioned at least briefly in summary.

Weighing: Be as creative as you want, I hate judges that don't evaluate certain weighing mechanisms like probability and SOL. If 2 weighing mechanisms are brought up and both are equally responded to without any metaweighing, I'll default to whoever weighs first. If no weighing's done (god forbid this happens), I'll default to SOL (please don't make me do this).

Final Focus:

I know this is cliche, but the best way to win my ballot is by writing it for me. You're best off specifically explaining why your path to the ballot is cleaner than theirs rather than focusing on minuscule parts of the flow.

This goes without saying, but everything in final should have been mentioned in summary (but not everything in summary should be in final), I don't like new stuff. No new implications can be made in this speech unless they're directly responsive to the speech before. I won't evaluate new weighing here unless there hasn't been any other weighing in the round.

Progressive Debate:

Progressive debate is good, awesome, cool, fun, and good.

Theory: I'm probably a bit better at evaluating theory debates than LARP ones. Feel comfortable reading theory on me, I've ran/hit theory a good amount over my career. I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team. If no paradigm issues are read, I'll default to DTA (when applicable), reasonability, and RVIs for accessibility reasons.

K's: Anything should be fine, but while I had a few K rounds in PF, most of my K experience comes from parli. There's a lot of literature I'm not familiar with, so please take CX to explain this stuff especially if it's pomo. I prefer K's with good (and multiple) topic links and alts outside of "vote neg" (I'm not sure if this is possible with PF rules?) but anything goes.

Tricks: Big fan of them, don't know why there's so much stigma around them. Note that my threshold for responses are low, especially if you're hitting a less experienced team, but feel free to run tricks.

Also, uplayer your prefiat offense. Please. Not enough teams do this.

Other:

I presume the team that lost the coin flip unless given a warrant otherwise. If there's no flip I'll presume the 1st speaking team
Big fan of TKO's
Big fan of content warnings
Big fan of tag-teaming
Not a big fan of discrimination. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped.

Speaker Points:

Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:

+ 1 for disclosing on the wiki (show proof before the round)
+ 1 for showing proof of you streaming my music
+ 0.5 for each Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech (Update: If I hear one more person tell me to say thank u, next to their C2, I will give you L20's and quit any involvement in this activity. I need a GOOD reference)
+ 0.5 for every CX skipped
+ 0.1 for every swear word
- 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, or any other fun impact turn
Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without any prep time
Instant 30's to both team members if you weigh/respond to their case for at least 30 seconds in 2nd constructive

I know this is short, so feel free to ask me any questions before the round

Parli

TL;DR: Most of my parli experience is on the college level, so I might be unaware of specific norms etc. in HS Parli. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and lots of weighing will take you a long way. Overall, I'm chill with most things that go in round, and I'll do my best to adapt to you. Debate is a lot more serious than it needs to be.

Case:

Love it, definitely the most confident in my decisions here.
Please please please please please terminalize your impacts. For some reason some HS parli teams struggle with this. Why does your impact matter, go the extra step during prep.
I'm a sucker for squirrelly arguments and impact turns.
Please weigh, I mean it. The earlier you weigh, the higher my threshold for responses are.
I love lots of warranting.
Go for turns.
Skim through my PF paradigm to see detailed opinions on case, but to put it briefly I'm pretty simple and am cool with anything.

Theory:

I love theory!! Let's go theory!!
MG theory is good, but will listen to warrants otherwise. I probably won't vote for theory out of the block/PMR unless it's a super violent violation.
I'll evaluate friv theory - if the shell is dumb then the other team shouldn't have an issue with winning it, but please don't be abusive to an inexperienced theory team.
I really don't understand the norm of no RVI's in parli. If a team runs theory on you, GO FOR RVI'S!!! I'm not an RVI hack but I want to see more RVI debates.
Because PF has too many theory rounds where someone doesn't know anything about theory, in the case that no paradigm issues are read, I'll default to DTA (when applicable) and reasonability.
I'll default to Text > Spirit and Potential Abuse > Actual Abuse in case those debates don't actually occur.

Kritiks:

Note that while I've read and competed against K's a good amount in my career, I'm still relatively new to K's compared to a super tech judge, so there's a chance you won't hear the decision you like.
Not familiar with a lot of lit, esp some of the weird pomo authors, but at the same time I'll 100% vote for something I don't understand if you win it.
The more links the better, preferably have them not generic, but this isn't necessary.
K affs are 100% fine, but if you can't tell already, I typically err Framework-T > K affs. I'm not a hack, but keep that in mind.

Other:

Speed is cool, but if I say clear and you don't clear I'll stop flowing.
Extensions are silly. While I do have a threshold for extending, that threshold is very low so the only time it would be a good idea to call out your opponents on their extending is if it's literally nonexistent.
Perms: If you're gonna perm something, respond to the perm spikes!!! Perms are a test of competition, not advocacy.
Tricks are good, but my threshold for responses are low, especially if you're hitting a less experienced team.
Condo's good, but it's easy to convince me that condo's bad.
Presume neg until I'm told otherwise
Big fan of content warnings
Big fan of tag-teaming
Not a big fan of discrimination. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped.
Collapse. Please.
Flex is binding but needs to be brought up during speech for me to evaluate it.
Repeat your texts or say them slowly.

Speaker Points:

Speaks are dumb and stupid and bad. You'll most likely get high speaks from me anyways, but if you want a 30, just win and debate well. Here are some other bonuses:

+ 1 for showing proof of you streaming my mixtape
+ 0.5 for each Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech (Update: If I hear one more person tell me to say thank u, next to their C2, I will give you L20's and quit any involvement in this activity. I need a GOOD reference)
+ 0.1 for every swear word
- 0.1 for wearing formal clothing in an online round
Instant 30's if you run spark, dedev, or any other fun impact turn
Instant 30's if you run any prefiat argument
Instant 30's if both teams agree to debate without flex (if applicable)

As I'm writing this I feel like I'm missing something. Feel free to ask me questions before the round.

LD/Policy

Dawg I have no clue how good of a LD/Policy judge I am. My roots come from "tech" PF debate, and I do parli now, but I have no effing clue what a value criterion is, nor do I have any interest in knowing what it means in the future. I know theory norms are completely different in these events, but I don't know exactly in what ways, so run it at your own risk. Your best bet is to keep things simple, and while nothing you run will get you dropped, I can only evaluate rounds to the best of my ability. Skim my parli paradigm to get a sense of how I judge. If you have any questions please ask them before the round.

Congress

I've never competed, judged, or even watched a congress round. LCQ will be my first experience and I don't really know what to put here. Think of me as a tech from other events, I don't really care if you speak pretty or anything. I feel like if you're funny I would probably like you? Bear with me, and if you have any questions feel free to ask before the round.

Derek Chang Hire

Maylin Chen Flintridge Preparatory None

Songting Chen Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Amanda Cheng Hire

Olivia Chiang Hire

Isabelle Cho Rancho Middle School

Anik Chobe Hire

Tony Choe ModernBrain

Antonina Clementi Athens Debate

Last changed on Thu May 11, 2023 at 5:31 PM EDT

Please add me on the email chain: antoninaclementi@gmail.com

Y'all should really just use speechdrop tbh. Your speechdrop/email chain should be set up BEFORE the round.

You should know the times and what comes next I should not have to speak to you once the debate starts.

I really need you to be on time, you need to be ready to give your speeches when you stop prep not digging through your bag or gulping water, and I really hate the 3, 2, 1 method. IMO you should be 15 mins early to your round

If you are super aggressive in round - I am not going to disclose.

DO NOT POSTROUND! JUDGE STRIKES EXIST FOR A REASON - IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH MY DECESION THAT IS FINE - STRIKE ME IN THE FUTURE! BUT IF YOU POSTROUND ME I WILL REMEMBER AND WILL NEVER DISCLOSE IF I AM JUDGING YOU AGAIN!

I am fine with and encourage questions. I consider post rounding any form of tone along with your question, eyeroll or general disrespectfulness.

I air Tech/Truth

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers

Hi! I competed for four years in high school at Teurlings Catholic High School (Class of 2021). I've done oratorical declamation, student congress, Lincoln Douglas debate, impromptu, and extemp. I am currently continuing forensics (NFA - LD, extemp, impromptu) at Western Kentucky University. I also currently coach for Ridge high school in NJ. I did online competition the entirety of my senior year and feel extremely comfortable with the online platform.

If you feel the need to quiz me on the topic, don't. That's rude.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Pref Shortcut:

1- Policy (LARP), traditional (do not default to traditional- I find it boring but I can evaluate it), stock Ks

2- T, theory, more dense/complex Ks

5/6 - tricks, phil

Framework (Value/Value Criterion):

With frameworks, I expect weighing as to why either your framework supersedes your opponents and/or how you achieve both frameworks. Have clear definitions of what your framework is and please be familiar with what you are running.

Counterplans:

I like a good counterplan. Make sure your counter plan is extremely fleshed out and has a strong link. Needs to have all components and please make clear the status of your counterplan in your constructive. Also, if you run a counterplan I need to hear the words net benefit from you at least once. Plank kicks are fine. My favorite counterplan is condo.

Theory Shells:

Not my favorite style of debate but, I can tolerate them. Please do not run frivolous theory. You should disclose - I do not want to vote on disclosure theory (esp round report) - so idk only run disclosure theory that makes sense.

I view theory as A priori - if you go for theory I am kicking the rest of your flow and only evaluating through the lens of theory.

I think new affs are good - I need like SUPER proven abuse to vote on new affs bad.

Topicality:

I like topicality and think some negatives have a place to run T. However, you need proven abuse to get me to vote on topicality. Also, I am fine if you go for T in your first speech and kick it if your opponent has decent responses.

K's:

Make sure your K's are creative and have a strong foundation, logic, and structure. If you run a K (especially a K directly on the topic) I need to know the role of the ballot and why my voting for you actually creates any type of change. Also, in any K round I need a clear and spelled out Alt. Something I have realized judging is I need to know what your K is - Is it cap? sett col? security? etc - You can not run a security and a cap K combined on the same sheet in front of me. Basically, I need to know what your K is and it needs to be one thing. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan.

Special Note on Cap K's

It is an uphill battle with me on the Cap K tbh. You can read it watch what you say. I have voted on lots of cap Ks before so its not impossible to get my ballot. I can not stand when you claim a country has successfully converted to communism when it has not in reality. I do think some countries have but I have had competitors claim Spain is a communist nation. Also when referring to failures of communism do not just say "South America" or "The Caribbean" . Further, do not conflate people who had to flee say Cuba to "All just slave owners" that is just not historically inaccurate and discrediting of the reality. TLDR: You can read it but you best be read up on communism and don't you dare try to say Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD.

DA/Policy Affs:

Follow a strict and clear structure. I really enjoy politics DAs but your uniqueness needs to be recent (from the last week) and follow a clear linking format. Terminal impacts are really important here but, I need to see linking so make that really clear. I enjoy most terminal impacts if they are linked well.

Note on Politics DAs

I am a poli sci major and currently work on a campaign. I know politics so do not say something dumb that makes no sense.

K Affs

I think they are really cool just be sure to be prepared to defend yourself on T and let me understand what my ballot does!

Tricks

Just thinking about trix makes me physically nauseas
I am super open to trix bads theory
Just have a substantive debate. Please.

Phil

Views on phil summed up: I do not LOVE phil - esp since its old white men but i am not like morally opposed ig i am just not going to be super happy - but debate is about running what makes you happy so ig its fine
some phil is cool
I am super open to Kant bad/any old white philospher bad theory so idk be prepared for that ig

Spreading:

I consider speed good in rounds, I think it advances the round. However I have three rules if you spread in front of me. First, your opponent must confirms they are okay with said spreading. Two, If you spread in any capacity I and your opponent will most definitely need a copy of your case and all blocks to be read sent to us. Three, don't spread if you are not an experienced and a "good" spreader, if you are spreading (and expect high speaks) I hope you look at spreading as a skill that needs through practice.

Signpost:

I am a flow judge and you should be signposting. Keep your evidence organized and clear, and make sure your extensions are valid and pointed out. GIVE ME AN ORDER EVERY SINGLE TIME AS DETAILED AS POSSIBLE.

CX:

I expect good CX questions - good CX will help you in speaks. Bonus points if you ask a question in CX and bring it up in a rebuttal later or use a CX question to hurt your opponents' framework.

Impacts:

These are pivotal to your case and blocks, have strong impacts and clear links! Big fan of terminal impacts! I like weighing done in rounds, definitely needed in your voters.

Speaks:

I use to think my speaks could not go below a 26.5. I was wrong. Take that as you well. Speaks are a reward. I'll disclose speaks, if you ask.

Flex prep:

If you use flex prep your bad at flowing

Post Rounding:

If you post round me I will stop disclosing for the rest of the tournament and drop your speaks. DO NOT DO IT. It's rude. Post rounding is different then asking questions for the sake of learning. Post rounding is you asking something snippy and when I give you my answer you roll your eyes - yes I have had this happen.

Policy:

- Same as LD
- Familiar w/ NATO topic

Public Forum:

Same as above

Yeah I know the rules of PF and know you can't run CPs in them.
I know things about debate DO NOT CX me pre round about if I know enough about PF to have the "pleasure" of judging you.
I have done PF, coached PF, taught PF to students abroad

Parli:

Same as LD
Do not forgot what the debate is about! Remember to at least sprinkle in key words of the topic
I like numbering of args and clear signposting

TLDR:

Do whatever, have fun, make sense

Good luck and have fun! If you have any questions/comments/concerns please feel free to email me (antoninaclementi@gmail.com).

Gianna Colby Tierra Linda Middle School

Last changed on Wed May 10, 2023 at 12:27 PM EDT

Hello! My name is Gianna Colby. I have been a speech and debater on the national circuit for almost six years. I competed in Extemp and Congress in high school, and now I am competing in Parli at the college level. Congress was my main event in high school, and I competed at the likes of Harvard and TOCs, but I was a finalist at Sunvitational, Princeton, and GMU. I was also fifth in my state competition-wise, first pointwise, and first to qual to nationals. I am currently an assistant coach at Tierra Linda Middle School in California, and I work under Marty De. My former school affiliation was Western High School, and my current university that I attend is the University of Florida.

But enough about my debate career, I would like to emphasize what I like in events.

For speech-oriented events such as HI and Duo, I like to be entertained. I am not so much of a technical judge with these events as I do not have much experience with them, but I do know the basics, and in general, I just want a well-polished piece that makes me feel something, and a speaker who is great as using gestures and their body language to put a piece together.

With informative and OO, which I do coach in, I like a piece that is meaningful and has a topic with depth. I also value organization and excellent speaking; in fact, I would go as far as to say that I value speaker quality over topic choice. I want you to change my opinion on something or teach me something new; that is the point of these events.

With impromptu, extemp, and Parli, I like a speaker who can think on the fly and is casual about it. All of these events are centered around a lay judge, meaning that the judge has no clue what you are talking about, so I want you to be able to convey and explain the topic and its points effectively. I want to go out of a round as a judge and understand what you are saying. For specifically Parli, I value a team who can "have a conversation" with the other teams points, meaning that they refute all of the other team's points while staying clear and concise. Again, I value a good speaker in all events, but in general, I will rank high if you are put together, speak well, and have excellent linkage.

For Congress, SPAR, and PF, the topics that I know the most about, I value refutation. These are called debate events for a reason; if you debate well, have clash, and interact with other speeches in the round well, you have my vote. If you are the first negation in congress, I expect you to have basic refutation if you are on the high school level. I want a person who can argue well but also maintain collected and composed. I will drop you if you yell at someone else in round. I do not give the winning rank to POs, however, I do respect them enough to give an in-between rank.

In general, what I value is a good speaker who is polite and fair, but also suited to their event, meaning debate events can argue well, informative events inform me as a judge, etc. I am not scared to drop you if you are rude because regardless of event, everyone should have respect for each other as basic human beings. But, just to wrap things up, I want you to be passionate about what you are talking about and convey that passion to me. Have a good day!

Shana Darvishan Hire None

Madhura Deo Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Veena Devarakonda Dougherty Valley Bridge

Donald Fernandes Fremont Debate Academy Centerville None

David Finnigan Beverly Vista Middle School

Mark Fireman La Reina None

Ruben Flores Trojan Elite None

Harish Gaggar Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy

Aayush Gandhi Hire

Varun Ganesan Athens Debate None

Daniel Garepis-Holland Hire

Last changed on Sat May 13, 2023 at 2:15 PM EDT

hi, i'm daniel! any pronouns. i don't mind judge or danielle either. add me to the chain — dgarepis@uw.edu

♥ update for middle school & novice tournaments

the preferences below are directed towards varsity high school debaters or varsity-level middle school debaters. if you don't understand what any of it means, just ignore it and debate to the best of your ability in the style you are comfortable with. i will meet you at your style and understanding of debate and evaluate the round from a more lay perspective if needed. i.e. if it is clear both teams are debating for the first time, i won't vote off of technicalities like whether stuff was extended properly or not. that said, if at least one of the teams clearly understands the basics of flow debate, i revert to the preferences listed below. THAT MEANS CLEARLY EXTEND THE LINK CHAIN AND IMPACT OF YOUR OFFENSE IN EVERY SPEECH!

please feel free to ask me any questions you have, the entire reason i signed up to help judge at these tournaments is to help out younger debaters as best i can!

♥ background

- pf for two years in middle school, two years of trad debate as palo alto gc. one year on the national circuit as palo alto gs. i got a couple bids and went to gold toc my senior year with my partner yash shetty, we also finaled ca states.

- some of my influences that my views align with are: gavin serr, zach dyar, nyla crayton, devon weis, chris thiele, and arjun maheshwari

♥ tl;dr: pretty standard flow, i will decide the round based on offense that is extended and warranted fully, and ideally comparatively weighed

- run (and wear) whatever you want
- speak as fast as you want (if you send a speech doc)
- good analytics = good cards (and analytics >>>>> miscut cards)
- extend clearly and collapse strategically on a few pieces of offense and do good weighing in the back half
- don't misgender people or be discriminatory, reserve the right to drop you for it
- ideally disclose on the wiki or at the very least send cut cards in the email chain (not share a google doc!)
- i will listen to cross but extend in speech. if we skip grand both teams get 1m of prep
- i will always give a verbal rfd if i can/have time

♥ evidence

- paraphrase if you’d like, but don’t misconstrue. have cut cards and ideally send them in the doc.

- don’t steal prep when calling for cards, and give cards promptly when they’re called for

- ideally send a doc for constructive and rebuttal if possible. +0.2 if you do (doesn’t apply to novices)

♥ speed

- i can handle up to like 250 wpm if you’re clear, but please send a doc anyway if you’re going quick

- debate at the speed you feel most comfortable

- just because you’re going fast doesn’t mean you can blippy. properly extend and warrant all arguments

♥ back half

- second rebuttal and first summary MUST extend offense (re-explain uniqueness, link chain and impact as well as frontlining) and respond to turns and terminal defense, ideally mitigatory defense as well if you’re going for that argument. ideally you should be collapsing to make this easier for you, you still need to respond to turns if you want to kick out

- i’m not the harshest stickler on extensions, it can be short — spend more time frontlining and weighing than extending. don’t spend all of summary repeating your case!!

- weighing should be done as early as possible. this can be changed with warranting, but sv > extinction > short-circuit > link-in > magnitude > timeframe (unless you give a good reason why) > probability. as annie chen said, "'nuke war is improbable' is not weighing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it's a response w no warrant." don't give made up jargon and be comparative.

- in principle, defense is sticky. if someone drops terminal defense but extends the argument, say, into 2^nd rebuttal, the argument is done. however, ideally you extend your defense in case i miss it on the flow.

♥ prog stuff

theory:

- default to competing interps no rvis. i sorta think rvis are dumb so i have a sorta high threshold to vote off an rvi but it's certainly possible

- i think disclosing and not paraphrasing are good norms so i have a low threshold for them. i have a medium threshold for round reports and other random shells. i have a low threshold for new k affs bad]

- in terms of cws. arguments like poverty or feminism do NOT need a content warning opt out form and there's an argument that doing this is actually bad. non-graphic discussions of sexual violence should have at least a content warning before you begin reading case. graphic descriptions of violence (which i've never actually heard read in round) MUST have an anonymous opt-out form, there's a chance i'll drop you regardless of theory

- another note on content warnings. after events at toc last year, if i find out that you read trafficking or some other possibly triggering argument and only provide an opt out form in front of flows but not lays, i reserve the right to still vote for the shell and tank your speaks

- yea ill vote off it

- t shell can be in paragraph form it's fine

- i'm by no means an expert at evaluating ks, but please run the argument

- i have a decent amount of experience with k affs, i have a decent understanding of the ideas and lit involved, and i enjoy hearing arguments that challenge normative assumptions

- i'm more comfortable evaluating cap, security, set col, etc. and identity ks than dense postmodernist lit. please warrant and explain rotb well if you want me to vote for the k aff, especially for a non-topical k

- run tricks if you want i think they're interesting tbh (thanks will and sab)

♥ pet peeves

- don't say game over or tko please

- all i need is "our case, their case, weighing" or "one off, then case" or at the very most "overview on their case, then our case"

- the best way to start your speech is to say "assuming everyone's ready, I'm going to begin." (NOT "3, 2, 1, go" or "partner ready? judge ready?")

things i like

- be passionate, funny and not boring, make friends with the opponents

- +0.5 speaks if you reference lyrics from any of my top artists, arsenal players, or the sopranos

♥ other events

- i have some experience with parli, ld, oo, and interp, nothing else.

- ld specifics: i'm more familiar with circuit stuff and LARP than i am with value/phil trad debate since i do pf and all, so i'd rather hear stock k, cp, pic, other policy stuff, etc. i can't handle dense phil lit esp if it's a new k aff i can't take time to read on wiki. also no policy style spreading even w speech docs although ill try to flow off the doc.

prefs sheet:

1 - k

2 - larp/trad

4/strike - phil

5/strike - tricks/high theory

my notes on structural issues in pf - see this doc

Harish Gaur Thornton Junior High School

Aimee Ge Egan Junior High School None

Saanvi Goyal Hire

Last changed on Fri June 2, 2023 at 7:25 AM PDT

Hey yall, I am a sophomore and I currently debate for Monta Vista (GT) in PF. I've been debating for a couple of years and have qualled to the g-toc. I've also competed in IX, NX, Impromptu, and Original Oratory. I don't have much experience with debate events outside of PF but I'm comfortable with the general mechanics of them, I don't know too many of the specific rules so I may need some clarifications. For Parli and LD, just consider me a trad flow.

Please add me to your email chains: saanvig2006@gmail.com. In addition, if you need any accommodations in the round please let me know.

Freshman Deathmatch Update:

Theory and Ks are fine, just don't run stupid interps.

TLDR

I HATE the 4 contention fad that has taken over PF these days, one minute is hardly enough to flesh out any argument you want to go for.
Speed is ok, but I'd rather you stay in the 200-250 range. If you are going to spread be clear and accommodating of your opponents + send docs
Well-run theory is fine if talking about legitimate abuses and norms (check theory section for more specifics, also this does not apply to middle school/novice/jv). Send speech docs with interps/text of the shell.
Don't be pricks

Rebuttal: Second rebuttal should definitely frontline any args you plan to go for + any offense. Please weigh and implicate your turns so I know how to evaluate them in the context of your opponents args.

Back half: I don't consider defense sticky, so if you want me to evaluate it, please extend it. Make sure to weigh the offense you go for, and do your best to interact with your opponents weighing.

Speed: Speed is fine, but please don't spread (I can probably flow up to 250-300). If you do spread, send a speech doc, but generally I'd rather you just didn't. If you are reading prog please slow down. If your opponent says clear, slow down. If I say clear, slow down. I will evaluate anti-spreading args if you refuse to accommodate the people in the round.

Evidence Ethics: I'd prefer it if you didn't paraphrase. In general, evidence exchange needs to be quick, if you are unable to pull up pieces of evi that you claim you have in a timely manner, your speaks will be dropped. I won't call out bad evidence for you though, If you want me to disregard your opponent's evidence, tell me in a speech. For online debate, please use email chains instead of a doc or the chat. I don't require you to send speech docs, but sending a speech doc would be appreciated as it saves time.

Speaker Points: I will probably average around a 28.5.If you all collectively agree to send speech docs before cases and rebuttal, I will bump your speaks +.2.

For progressive argumentation:

Theory: I enjoy theory debates. I am familiar with common shells like paraphrasing shells and disclosure, I can be swayed either way on both. I don't believe in trigger warnings for non-graphic material (especially if your opponent is disclosed), but if you win it on the flow I will evaluate it. In general, try not to get too caught up in minor violations, don't read theory if your opponents didn't disclose one round report from 7 rounds ago, just contact them.

If you are in varsity, I don't think that theory bad is a good response to any stock shell, or "we don't know how to respond". I understand that it can be hard to engage with these arguments if you are new to hearing them, but treat them like you would any other argument and do your best to engage with the warranting your opponents' offer as to why their norm is good.

If you are in a middle school or novice division, I won't evaluate disclosure theory or other norm-setting based theory. I will only evaluate theory around genuine abusive or harmful things in the round (like misgendering or egregiously bad evi ethics). Although in this case of things like misgendering, as long as I am aware or made aware that it occurred, you likely don't even have to read theory, I have no regrets stopping the round right there.

Ks: If you are reading one, please explain the literature well. I am totally open and interested in hearing these arguments in PF, but I am not the most experienced in reading them.

Tricks/Friv Theory: These are horrible. I don't buy them. You might win the round, but your speaks will not be great. You also probably won't win the round.

Some types of theory I consider frivolous: disclosing RFDs, ROTB, Spec

Important stuff: If you do anything remotely racist, sexist, homophobic etc. I will drop you and give you the lowest speaks possible. This includes things like jokes, I assure you they are not funny.

I will typically disclose my decisions unless tournament rules prohibit it, feel free to ask any questions after I give my decisions or email me after with any questions.

Generally, wear whatever you want, you can stand or sit during speeches, I don't care too much about semantics. Be nice to each other and have fun!

Michelle Gradis La Reina None

Paul Festus Green Hire

Justin Greenberg Beverly Vista Middle School

Last changed on Fri May 12, 2023 at 5:27 AM PDT

Current Public Forum debater at Beverly Hills High School.

For debate (mainly PF bc its just better :)

I’m fine with some speed, but if you plan on spreading, or talking at fast paces, give an off-time roadmap and I will allow that. Make contentions clear, make points clear, and any/all sources should be cited [Last name of author/year]. A source that is not cited in NSDA format may not count towards my decision and may not help your case....unless their is a specific tournament exemption (but don't stress about it).

How I decide a winner:
1) Quantifications: Unless you boldly choose to go with a deontological --or something similar-- framework, I want to hear quantifications. For example, if you tell me "more people will be arrested because of (insert resolution)" but do not tell me how many people have been, or will be --I.e a number--, chances are, I wont give that argument much weight. Quantifiable impacts are big for me.

2) Definitions and framework: You don't need either of these, but they usually will help your case (assuming they are the right choices). A good definition and framework goes a long way in building a bulletproof case that flows cleanly through. Keep in mind that definition must be in line with the wording of the resolution. Don't bend the wording of the resolution. That said, it's really only a beneficial thing, it won't hurt you if neither team blows me away with their framework and definitions.

3) Weight: Hey second speaker --or just speaker in the rare case I ever judge LD--! Listen up close! A good final focus --or 2NR/2AR-- usually means the difference for me.....and most people who have ever judged a round. Weigh the debate. Tell me what you offer, tell me what the opponent(s) offer(s), and tell me why your case/line of argumentation holds more weight. I can not make this clear enough. If you do not weigh the debate throughout, but moreso in the final speech, you can say goodbye to the win (unless you are exceptionally compelling in the other portions of the debate).

Finally, use cross to your advantage, I WILL use this to decide a winner.

Other than that, just be respectful and honest.

For speech/congress:

Prefer less speed, as I’m really going to be finding the core of your points and not what they literally state.

Really get into why I should listen to you, tell me what you offer, and why you are undoubtedly correct.

Ask questions!!

Peter Guo Hire

Last changed on Fri April 28, 2023 at 1:43 AM PDT

I have 4 years experience debating in parliamentary debate. In 2022, my partner and I won CHSSA and participated in TOC. If you're doing LD or PF I have only done one tournament of each so excuse me if I don't understand it as well.

Plans---I'll watch for extra topicalities that the aff is going above and beyond what the resolution is asking and vote against them, counter-plans are welcome and same with the aff perming the counter plan. As long as aff can prove the two plans are not mutually exclusive I'll vote for the perm and flow over the advantages that come from the counter-plan.

Theory---I'm fine with all the theories you try to run and will vote for them if you prove enough abuse. The aff just calling fiot is not a viable response to the theories, they have to explain more than that on why they aren't being abusive.

Kritiks--- I love Ks and will most definitely vote for them with the exception of Fem IR as I think it's too biased in terms of arguments an all girls team could run thats impossible for an all male team to respond to without coming off as sexist or not caring about the topic. I will vote for aff Ks if they win the framework debate.

Case---If the aff doesn't provide definitions or weighing mechanism in their first speech and the neg first speaker provides one, I'll weigh the round with that standard. Links and Impacts are very important, make sure to impact all the points you want me to look at in order of importance in the rebuttal. I will try my best to protect but if you notice a new point brought up in the rebuttal, feel free to call out point of order.

speaks--- Most of the time I'll give at least 25 speaker points, I give speaks based on clarity of speech, stuttering, needing help from partner and mis-pronunciation of words you didn't have to include in your case. If you run a K really well I'll most likely give 30 speaks to both debaters on that team and likewise lower speaks if they ran it pretty badly.

Voters---Theories, Kritiks, Impacts, weighing mech.

if you are disrespectful or discriminatory it's an automatic drop.

feel free to ask me any questions before round starts, good luck guys.

KaLeah Guptill Athens Debate

Lennis Han Hire

Jeff Harkleroad Liangyi Youth Leadership

Last changed on Sat October 15, 2022 at 2:53 PM EDT

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

INTERP overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Zivah Hartman Hire None

Bharti Hathalia The Golden State Academy

Lucas A. Havemose Hire

Last changed on Sat May 13, 2023 at 11:10 AM PDT

Debate is fundamentally a verbal communication activity, and I expect the strategies of debaters to reflect that. This means that I prefer to have a slower debate with more nuance compared to a fast debate with more volume. While I can handle speed, it needs to be pristinely clear with signposting throughout. If I cannot understand what is being said, or I don't know where it should be flowed, I will not flow it and I will not vote on it. I will hold up my pen to indicate that I cannot follow what is being said.

Whether or not a written case has been shared with me doesn't change this, and does not make up for your lack of speaking ability. I view case sharing as a way to better allow the examination and verification of the evidence provided by each side to protect the integrity of the activity, not as a way to allow for mediocre speaking. Case sharing should only happen with the agreement of all parties in the round, and I will not view cases only shared by one party.

Courtesy, to both your opponents and your partner, is very important to me. If you cannot explain your argument or participate in cross examination in a professional manner, then you are not a superior debater and you will not get my vote.

Analytics are the most important part of debate in my opinion. Explaining how the evidence does or does not link together, what the implications of this is, and what exactly the difference between the affirmation and the negation are is the best way to persuade me. In other words, try to write my ballot for me.

While I will believe whatever is presented to me as long as there is no contention to it, the affirmative has the burden of proof and thus arguments without a clear winner go to the negation. For me to vote in the affirmation, there needs to be a clear benefit in contrast to the negation. New arguments in final speeches will not flowed, and will not be voted on.

I debated throughout all 4 years of high school, participating in PF, Parli, and Policy. I judged for the last 2 years of high school, mainly judging PF and LD.

Tori Hoge La Reina

Last changed on Sun February 12, 2023 at 1:47 PM PDT

TLDR;

I like K’s; i believe they have an important place in debate when done right. Don’t be mean. You do you honestly. Read anything and warrant it well, I’ll probably vote for it.

About Me

pronouns: she/her

I am a sophomore at Stanford.

put me on the email chain: torihoge@stanford.edu

events i have competed in from most frequently to least: policy, ld, parli, pofo, congress, impromptu (at heart, i am a policy kid)

I coach nationally all levels of policy, LD, and public forum. Do with that what you will.

PET PEEVES:

1. is everybody ready. Say is anyone not ready and begin 2. my timer starts now. Just hit start 3. (for online debate) please turn your camera on when you are speaking 4. don't decide your roadmap while you are talking. at least sound certain of what order you are going in

IMPORTANT READ:

If there is anything I can do to accommodate your needs, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Do not read a K just because you saw I like k’s. Do not use other’s oppression for a ballot. This is not okay. You must be well versed in the literature and have a genuine understanding and care for the argument you read, or don’t bother. I don’t like performative activism or reading things just for a ballot. I would rather do a lot of things than watch a bad k debate. If k’s are your thing and you are knowledgeable, then go for it, it’s my favorite kind of debate.
Also include trigger warnings for graphic depictions of racial/settler/ableist/anti-queer/gender-based violence and anything to do with sexual assault or suicide.
My philosophy: if you can explain a very complex topic in simple enough words to explain to a grandparent, then you are a very good debater
If you do anything of the -ists or -ics (think racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc.) you will receive an L-25
email me before or after if you wanna talk about literally anything or if you have any questions about my paradigm or about the round

I’m a great judge for you if:

you like k debate or read mostly critical arguments
you like technical, high speed debate
you have fun, quirky arguments that demonstrate a lot of personality
you are amazing at T
you have a well-researched stock case

K’s

I was a k debater in high school. This is not an invitation to read any k ever. I do not know or understand the premise of every single k that exists. For reference k’s I have debated are neolib/cap, fem ir, queer ir, security, imperialism, setcol, and speaking for others. At least, that is what I can remember off the top of my head. Even if you are reading a k that I have read, explain it and warrant it as if I have no idea what is going on. K’s need some alt or a very good explanation of why defense is enough and why you don’t need one. K’s need a specific link otherwise they don’t work. What you’re talking about may be important, but if it does not link, then it is not part of the conversation.

Nontopical/K-affs

I don’t really care if they are in the direction of the topic or not. I think that it is stupid that some judges are like at least run a K in the direction of the affirmative, like no that’s quite literally not the point of k-affs. Also, I read my fair share of k-affs in high school primarily fem killjoy and open borders. I am ok with k-affs, but again do not just read them for a ballot, and do them right.

Topicality (not theory)

I like (and can even love) topicality debates when they are done right. However, if T is not your forte, DO NOT RUN IT IN FRONT OF ME. I despise bad T debates.

Theory (distinct from topicality)

Sometimes can be justified, but it has never been a voting issue for me. Run it if you want, but it better be warranted.

CPs

I think they’re great for stock debate. I think they help generate offense. However, I need a very clear explanation of why the perm cannot work, or else I am prompted to vote on the perm. I default to the perm if the explanation does not make sense, if I do not follow, or if it is contradictory. Perm work here is very important for me. Also this should be obvious but I’m putting it in because I see it wayyyyy too many times. YOUR DA SHOULD NOT LINK TO THE CP. that’s the point of a cp.

DAs

Also good for stock debate. Warrant well. Connect to a terminal impact. I think that they need some sort of CP or K with them.

CHSSA/Lay debate

I really don’t care what the “rules” are or whatever the handbook says. If your only strategy is to complain that they are cheating or aren’t following the rules, then get better at debate: learn how to debate substance.
Don’t try any mind tricks. I am flowing. I know when your opponent dropped something or when they did not. Do not claim they dropped something when they did not.

I was very heavily influenced by Andrea Chow. Andrea is the goat and was also my partner in high school. Check out her paradigm for more context as I generally agree with all of her philosophies.

Lawrence Hou Redwood MS None

Lisa Howard Athens Debate

Emily Hu Alannah Debates

Jehan Jacobs Bear Creek High School

Alpesh Jain Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Charu Jain Joaquin Miller Middle School

Ramesh Jaladi Stratagem Learning

Sung Jun Jeon Athens Debate

Last changed on Mon February 13, 2023 at 10:05 AM EDT

I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for two years. I am a junior at Vanderbilt University.

I competed at a few national circuit tournaments, but most of my debating was done on the local circuit. Because of this, I am not too familiar with theory and Ks. I am open to hearing these arguments, but I won't be the best at evaluating these types of arguments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How I vote:

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

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

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

If you have any additional questions, let me know.

Manish Kadakia Redwood MS

Bhavana karnik Stratagem Learning None

Mathew Karnyski Academy of Higher Learning

Padmaja Khulbe Joaquin Miller Middle School

Aiden Kim Athens Debate

Jessica Kim Thornton Junior High School

Last changed on Sun February 12, 2023 at 6:11 AM EDT

heyy everyone! im jessica, been doing pf debate for 4 years.

GENERAL: speaks.as a debater, i understand how annoying it is to get low speaks. i will honestly give every speaker good speaks UNLESS you make racist, homophobic, or similar comments during the round. really good speeches or crossfires will earn you more points.

PUBLIC FORUM PREFERENCES: i'm a flow judge, but that being said, it doesn't mean i don't somewhat value presentation. make sure to maintain a good pace and try not to stumble over your words too much. you can get technical, but don't go to the point where you are spreading. you can go somewhat fast, but be understandable

defense/offense. defense and offense need to be extended through summary and final focus. if something is dropped, i'm not going to vote on it.

collapsing. PLEASE collapse. for those of you who don't know what this means: in summary (or second rebuttal), hone in on one argument that your opponents have little or bad responses to. then blow this up, i mean tell me why it is the most important argument in the round!! don't forget to extend though, as in extend the most important evidence from this contention (example: The most important argument in this round is our first contention on _, we extend Barnes 22 which tells you that _, and our impact is the economy, as Roberts 21 quantifies __)

weighing. ALSO weigh. tell me why your argument is more important than your opponent's argument. don't just throw around the words "magnitude", "timeframe", and "scope", TELL ME WHY THEY MATTER

rebuttal. make sure to SIGNPOST (meaning tell me which point you are responding to) and also NUMBER RESPONSES PER CONTENTION (this means you should say stuff like "on their first contention of _, we have 10 responses" and then go through each one of them). please don't miscount your responses by saying that you have 30 and just reading 3 :((

i will evaluate disclosure theory, but know that while i have seen theory debates before, i have less experience running theory myself

let me know if you have any questions about my paradigm/preferences. have fun debating guys!

Elina Kohanbash Hire None

Ashutosh Kumar Athens Debate

Aeni Lee The Golden State Academy None

Brian Lee Brooks Debate Institute

Jason Nam Lee Hire None

Sophia Lew Egan Junior High School None

Rohan Lingam Hire

Yi Liu Dougherty Valley Bridge

Ayden Loeffler Athens Debate

Last changed on Fri February 21, 2020 at 1:21 AM PDT

THEORY/THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE DEBATE - This is my bread and butter. If I were able to pick and choose how every debate would go that I judged or competed in, it would just be layers and layers of theory on top of each other. On a base level I believe that theory is a question of rules that are malleable, completely made up and debatable. This means that I am willing to listen to and vote on a lot of generally agreed upon "bad theory" that is debated well.

When reading fresh new and exciting theory I expect a concise interpretation, a clean violation and a distinct link to the ballot through things that should be prioritized in debate/life. If those 'things' are not fairness and education I'll likely need an explanation as to why I should care about this other priority as well.

Some hurdles (biases) for debaters to overcome when having theory rounds in front of me: (1) I tend to defend against theory than it is to read theory, (2) I find conditionality to be good and healthy for the types of debates that I want to see, (3) disclosure theory does more harm for debate (by dropping teams that didn't know about disclosing) than any good it does, (4) I weigh theory on the interpretation not its tagline (this means debaters should wait to hear the interpretation before they start writing answers that miss a poorly written OR nuanced interpretation), (5) there isn't a number or threshold for too many theory positions in a round aside from speed and clarity, (6) RVIs are not worth the breadth just sit down, (7) you're either going for theory or you aren't, I am heavily bothered by debaters that say the sentence, "and if you aren't buying the theory here's this disad."

Read your interpretation slower and repeat it twice. I will not vote on theory that I do not have one clear and stable interpretation for. Also just read it slowly because I don't want to miss out on the substance of the rounds I really want to hear.

Theory positions have differing layers of severity that adjust how I get to prioritize them when writing the ballot. This means that I want to hear arguments that suggest plan plus counterplans are justified when the AFF isn't topical or that MG theory is a bigger offense than topicality etc. Many of my ballots have been decided by simple arguments that change the priority of certain theory over others.

SPEED - Speed is a tool just like written notes and a timer in debate that allow us to more efficiently discuss topics whether that be on a scale of breadth or depth. Efficiency requires a bunch of elements such as: both teams being able to respond to all or group most of the arguments in a meaningful way and being able to hear and write the arguments effectively.

To newer debaters who have stumbled into a paradigm, during the other team's speech you are free to use the words "slow" and "clear" if you feel as though you cannot keep up in the round. If the other team does not acknowledge your request, you should make it an argument that you should win the round because the other team has not accommodated basic requests for an efficient debate.

CRITICISMS - My interest in criticisms has waned over the years. It could just be a difference in debate meta between when I competed and now but I find many of the critical arguments run in front of me to be either constructed or read in a way that I have difficulty understanding. I don't vote on criticisms with alternatives that are incomprehensible, poorly explained or use words that mean nothing and aren't explained (the first point of your alt solvency should probably clear up these points if your alt is a mess).

I have a very difficult time weighing identity politics impacts in rounds.

Collapse - Please collapse.

Wesley Loofbourrow Athens Debate

Last changed on Sat May 13, 2023 at 5:24 AM PDT

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

Lauren Lopez Flintridge Preparatory None

Taylor Luna Egan Junior High School None

Yang Luo Stratford Preparatory School None

Manoj Madhukar Thornton Junior High School None

Kirthi Mahender Thornton Junior High School None

Vedant Maheshwari Hire

SUSHANTA MAJI Fremont Debate Academy Centerville None

Tania Makhija Hire None

Arushi Mani Hire None

Alex Martin La Reina

Emilio Menotti Able2Shine

Chaith Mittal Hire

Sabahat Nabiha Flintridge Preparatory None

HARINADH NAGULAPALLI The Golden State Academy

Maanika Nambudiri Hire None

Hari Nidumolu Stratford Middle School - San Jose None

Aidan Okyar Hire

Last changed on Sun May 14, 2023 at 1:45 AM PDT

Hello! I'm Aidan, a current speech and debater for Bellarmine College Prep (class of '26!)-- I'm happy to be your judge (:

Add me to the email chain: aidan.okyar@gmail.com

You can email me there or at aidan.okyar26@bcp.org if you have any questions about decisions.

I've done S&D for ~4 years: I did LD in MS for three years along with OO and Congress briefly but now do Policy and Extemp in HS.

Generally, in round, please be respectful, clear, and overall just enjoy your experience!

Now, onto more specifics:

Debate:

Generally, speak slow-- I'll break down event-by-event a bit below, but PLEASE do not spread, I will not have a clue what you're saying. I will time you and will stop flowing when time ends. In any sort of cross-examination, crossfire, POI, etc-- please be KIND.

Speaks: Be a good debater AND speaker-- make good arguments AND have good delivery-- one or the other is okay, but most times, only debaters who do both excellently will get 30s from me. CX matters here too!

Follow general etiquette PLEASE-- don't be a jerk EVER. Any sort of homophobia/racism/etc = 0+L

General tips:

I take POI/CX seriously and into account! Use them to undermine your opponents' arguments!
Be clear and clash with arguments
Frame and impact out the round

Policy:
You can use Ks, T, DAs, CPs, theory, etc if you are willing to impact it out concretely. I lean very slightly truth>tech (I won't accept blatantly false args-- if I can find a claim blatantly opposite from what you say on the front page of a credible news source, I won't accept it); otherwise, I'm unbiased on that matter. Don't read troll arguments (you know if you read these); random timesink arguments are a no for me. Give me burdens for stock issues/how each team can win the round/what the aff/neg burden is, etc. 2ARs/2NRs, recap the debate briefly-- make it clear for me what has gone on and why I should vote for you. Refer to my comments on speaks above for instructions on speaker points.

LD:
I'm a bit out of practice with LD-- I did it in MS for 3 years but I'm not all caught up with current styles, etc. Like policy, you can use Ks, Theory, etc if you are willing to go slowly and explicitly tell me what it means for the debate. Give me burdens for winning the debate-- I'm coming in with a clean slate, so it's up to you to tell me how to evaluate the round. For values and value criterion-- CLASH about it and tell me why your V/VC MATTER. Again-- impact it out properly and summarize your round in your last speech.

PF:
PF is something I learned very briefly, but I'm familiar with how the event works. PLEASE be responsive to arguments in every speech you need to. Your final focuses should be FRAMING and SUMMARY, no new arguments. Don't run timesink arguments that you never will bring up again. And as I've said over and over again, IMPACT IT OUT!

Parli:
I did Parli at the HS level for a bit and am familiar with it and how it works. For POIs: Please don't spam POIs to stall your opponents, that's just rude; if your opponents have a POI, it's up to you to answer it-- ignoring all their POIs is rude too, decline politely if you don't have time and answer if you can. Please be responsive in argumentation-- don't just talk about case and forget about off-case. Also, tell me WHAT I AM VOTING ON-- every resolution is different, tell me what I'm deciding on. Also, please tell me the topic before the round.

Congress:
I did Congress at the MS level but don't really understand the intricacies of it. Make sure to be clear and talk about the topic and SIGNPOST. Further than that is up to you, but I mostly will be ranking on who I think is best at speaking while being responsive.

Speech:

Delivery is just as important as content! No matter what type of speech you're doing, please DELIVER-- it's a speech after all! Like debate: Follow general etiquette & don't be a jerk to other people. Any sort of homophobia/racism/etc = lowest rank.

OO/OA/Info:
Make sure you're doing what's right for your event-- your speech should be practiced and memorized. I prefer topics that are important to society right now-- random small-scale topics don't convince me as well. OO: Tell me what mindset you want to change/etc. OA: Tell me what policy you want to change-- be CONCRETE. Info: Your speech should be centered around your definition and your word/phrase! Use VAs well.
Be funny if your topic can be funny!

Extemp:
I do extemp right now at the HS level, and I'm versed with the event's workings. Will be timing & will give you time signals from 5 down if I can-- please time yourself in case I ever fall off the rails. I care about both delivery and content. Make sure you hook me into your speech-- be funny or serious-- whatever you can do for your speech. Some asks: have full cites with publication and specific date, have a clear answer to your question (e.g: if it's a "how...?" question-- outline what you would do, etc), please be as close to the time as you can-- both short and long speeches will mean worse ranks. Be CLEAR with your analysis-- make it unique and specific. Make sure you summarize your speech quickly but well in your conclusion.

Interp:
I have never done interp before, but I have watched a few very good ones-- just deliver and I'll vote on how much I like both what you did and how you did it-- I will prioritize delivery though.

Impromptu:
I love listening to good impromptus! I do it as a side event right now, and I know that it can be difficult to come up with good stuff in such a short time. Some things: I will be skeptical on your "personal stories" because I can't validate those, a good intro related to the topic is always good, please make sure to relate your subpoints to your topic after every point. Be funny, be serious, do whatever you need to do-- I'm just here to listen, and I'm open to anything.

Conclusion:

I know speech and debate can be difficult-- you got this! Just remember what I've said for your event(s) and have fun above everything else :D

Good luck!!

Dhruva Pappu Hire

Last changed on Sat May 13, 2023 at 12:58 AM PDT

EXPERIENCE: I am a varsity parliamentary debater in high school, and have a history of public forum debate as well. I have been doing debate for about 4-5 years now.

Here are some of my preferences. If you have any questions, please ask.

RESPECT: It is really important to be very respectful while being passionate in a debate. Being passionate and being disrespectful are two completely different things bordered by a fine line, please do not cross it. If you aren’t respectful, you will have speaker points deducted, and if worst comes to worst, the win will go to the other team.

SPREADING: I am a flow judge, so spreading will not be an issue with me. But speak at whatever speed you want.

K’s: I do not recommend giving K’s at a novice level simply because nobody really understands them, and they are a really big hassle to actually argue. That being said, if you do choose to run them, I will flow, but it is entirely your job to connect the dots for me.

THEORY: Similar to K’s I do not recommend you running them, but I will flow them if you do choose to run them. Once again, it is entirely up to you to make it work in the constraints of the round. I will not be connecting the dots for you.

CP’s: When it comes to Public Forum debate, I do not recommend using CP’s whatsoever, especially at a novice level.

CLASH: I am a big fan of clash in a debate, and often find it lacking in many rounds. If there is clash in the round, please explain it to me in either your summary or final focus speeches. When it comes to clash, please present your evidence clearly such that the opposing team and I, as the judge, can understand.

TECH > TRUTH: I understand that some arguments do not have evidence readily open, but if they make logical sense, and you present it in such a way, I will consider it on my flow.

SIGNPOSTING: Please signpost. I cannot emphasize enough how important this is to your own organization and clarity, but it also helps with my flow as well as your opponents.

IMPACTS: This is probably single-handedly one of the most important parts of debate. This plays a significant part in my flow. Not only do you have to state your impact and your source, but you also have to weigh it well in your last speeches. If your opponents have a bigger impact than you, you can still win if you prove how yours is more relevant and more imminent.

EVIDENCE/CARDS: If there is a card sharing document being used, please share it with me. Make sure that whenever you are showing your opponents your card, that I can see it as well. If your evidence does not make sense, I will be waiting for it to be contested, and I will be looking things up myself. However, I will not be giving the result based off of what I have seen, and will only include it if your opponents state it clearly in their cases.

STANDARD/FRAMEWORK: Likewise to impacts, your framework is what I will be judging the entire round based off of. If you and your opponents have different frameworks, it is up to the both of you to prove how one is more important and should be used over the other. I will not be judging based on my personal preference, but rather based off what is argued more effectively.

PREP TIME: This is there for you to use to your advantage. PLEASE USE IT! It will only help you. I will be keeping track of your time on my end as well.

SPEECH TIMES: Your speeches should all be falling within the times allotted per speech, but I will be giving you a 15 second grace period. Once again, I will be timing on my end.

CROSSFIRES: I will not be flowing crossfires. If anything important is said here, it is your job to mention this in your later speeches. Be respectful and allow everyone to speak. Don’t get too worked up and yell. Remember that this is a safe learning environment.

DISCLOSURE: I will disclose results as well as giving an oral rfd if the tournament allows it. I will also be putting comments into the online ballot.

SPEAKER POINTS: I will typically not give anyone less than a 25 for speaker points, unless I really feel like lots of improvement is needed. Make sure you stay calm, present your arguments well, and have good clarity.

PARLI SPECIFIC:

I am a parli debater and know how stressful it can be. I to consider tech over truth so have fun with that.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS YOUR DAY TO SHINE! REMEMBER TO ALWAYS TRY YOUR BEST, LEARN FROM THE DEBATES, AND HAVE FUN!

Andrew Park Hire

Ethan Park Blach Intermediate School

Last changed on Thu May 25, 2023 at 2:25 PM PDT

Hi, I'm Ethan (any pronouns), a sophomore parli debater with MVLA. This paradigm is parli specific, but most of this applies to other events as well.

TL;DR:

I generally go Tech > Truth. This is your debate, feel free to run any kind of argument as long as they don't harm your opponents. If you read something egregiously offensive, I will drop you. Please signpost, extend your arguments, and do good weighing. If you're running something complicated or techy, make sure your opponents can understand it. If you feel like you're getting skewed out of the debate, make that known and I'll do my best to respond. If you get confused in round, talk to me after and I can try my best to help you out.

General:

Be respectful to everyone in the room. Don't run offensive or discriminatory arguments or I will drop you. If you attack your opponents or say anything sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I will drop you.

I will buy just about any argument as long as they aren't offensive or complete misinformation. If I catch any obvious lies or made-up warrants, I will either drop you or lower your speaks. If I think it's an honest mistake, I will drop the argument at the very least. This doesn't apply to meme cases though. If you're running something funny, that's fine just make sure your opponents can understand it.

Extend your arguments through every speech. If you drop something in one speech, I consider it dropped completely. I won't vote on sketchy shadow extensions.

On speed, I'm comfortable with just about anything. Go as fast as you'd like, but don't spread out your opponents. If your opponents call slow or clear, you should slow down. If your opponents are very clearly uncomfortable with your speed, I will dock your speaks. If your speed severely harms accessibility, my threshold for voting on any kind of accessibility argument (i.e. speed theory) will be on the floor.

Please time yourselves. I won't flow anything over time, and I will deduct speaks if you go over grace.

Tag-teaming is cool. Funny arguments are cool. I'm really just down for anything as a judge.

Case Debate:

Please signpost. Make it clear to me when you're on uniqueness, links, or impacts. Bonus points if you make each subpoint clear.

You should be weighing as much as possible. If your opponent does some kind of weighing, respond to that. Meta-weighing or impact framing is also very much appreciated.
My metaweighing/impact calc defaults are probability > magnitude > timeframe and long term > short term. I also think irreversibility falls under magnitude rather than timeframe for those purposes. It isn't too hard to convince me to vote on magnitude > probability though. You just have to make those arguments.

In cases where both sides have the same impacts, I'm probably voting on strength of link. In that case, providing link-level comparisons, probability weighing, etc. will be very helpful in cleaning up the debate.

I love strategic plans and counter-plans. I know that it can be easier to default to res/squo, but running a strategic plan/cp will impress me as a judge. You should have a clear text and I'd love solvency arguments/comparative solvency arguments as well.

I grant offense on CPs as an argument of opportunity cost for the aff. This means I can and will vote on a strategic CP. I think condo is kinda fine but I’m receptive to condo bad. However, I don't particularly like delay, consult, or other similar cps, but after seeing the topics at 2022 NPDI Open R4 and 2023 Nueva Open R5, I've started to become much more lenient on those kinds of "sketchy" CPs.

Lay vs. Tech

I really hate the idea of excluding certain arguments in debate. For that reason it’ll be an uphill battle trying to get me to vote for “Ks bad” or “T bad” in round. The exception is for “lay tournaments.” Especially in events like LD and PF there seem to be a lot of communities that prefer solid case debate and dislike “circuity arguments.” While I personally think the exclusion of those arguments is a pretty bad norm, I think going to a "lay tournament" just to crush case debaters by reading arguments they won’t understand is also pretty exclusionary. I will always support K and T if I feel the circumstances in round warrant running it. This will never change even at lay tournaments. But if I feel like your usage of technical arguments is skewing out your opponents, I won’t hesitate to drop you. That being said, let’s move on to the techy side of my paradigm.

Theory:

I'll evaluate just about anything, although I will be very harsh with friv theory. I've run friv a decent bit before, but If you're at a level where you're running friv theory, you probably shouldn't be in the novice pool. I'll still vote for friv unhappily if i have to but don't skew out your opponents pls.

I think theory can be very educational in novice debate, but only if it's run in a very clear and understandable way. In the spirit of that, you don't have to use jargon like apriori with me. Just describe what you're talking about and I'll self-translate on my flow. I'm good with jargon use as well, just make it understandable for other novices.

Please go through interp --> violation --> standards --> voters in order. If you are going out of order, please tell me that beforehand for the sake of my flow.

I will default to competing interps and drop the argument unless you explain otherwise. if you're trying to win reasonability, give me a brightline or I probably won't buy it.

I usually dislike the RVI in JV/Varsity. I usually like the RVI in novice. IVIs on the RVI can be funny if run well.

Kritiks:

I see the K as a tool to increase accessibility in the round. You should not be using the K to skew your opponents out of the round. To do so goes completely against the purpose of the K.

Please don't just read a K from someone else's backfiles. I probably won't buy the K if I think you're just spewing jargon without properly understanding what you're. If I don't think you understand your K, you probably won't be winning on it. If I don't think your opponent understands your K, it'll make evaluating any pre-fiat impacts pretty hard.

Fiat alts are kinda weird but maybe I'm the only person who thinks that. Either way, I'd love analysis of pre-fiat vs. post-fiat impacts. I'd also love to hear in-depth solvency on the alt. Bonus points for in-round solvency. Absent solvency, the K becomes almost strategically useless in terms of my evaluation.

I default to T>K>Case with cross-apps from T to K or K to T being fine. I'm open to K>T or no-cross-apps arguments if made.

In terms of lit base, I'm familiar with queer theory and basic cap. I think cap gets kinda boring though and would really like to hear some more creative Ks on the circuit. If you want to run some kind of performance, that's cool. If you want me to flow it, I'll try my best. If you want me to lay back and stop flowing, I'm also up for that as well.

If you're reading a K-Aff, please try your best to disclose. You don't have to disclose your alt (but doing so is pretty cool) just try to disclose the fact that you aren't being topical. It gives negs key ground that makes debates so much better.

POI/POO:

I flow POI answers. Please don't abuse the POI. If your opponents say to wait until the end of the contention or block, respect that.

Call the POO. I protect, but any articulation on why a particular argument is a violation will make my job easier as a judge.

I grant both the PMR and LOR new weighing and meta-weighing. I occasionally allow new impact framing as long as it isn't super abusive. I grant the PMR golden turns on anything new out of the block + any sketchy extensions out of the LOR.

Speaks:

Speaker points are really arbitrary in debate and I kind of hate them. Unfortunately, they do exist so here's my take on them. In general, you should get around a 28 if nothing crazy happens in round. I'll probably be giving speaks mostly based on strategic arguments that impress me. Going egregiously over time or making problematic arguments will get your speaks docked (as previously stated). If you want to run 30 speaks theory, I might genuinely buy it if I'm feeling silly enough.

Final Note:

I know this paradigm might seem slightly overwhelming but in general, just try your best to enjoy the debate and make the debate enjoyable for your opponents. I'll try to give as in-depth feedback as possible, and will disclose if allowed. I'll do my best to keep the debate space as inclusive as possible in-round. Good luck!

Rebekah Park Egan Junior High School

Last changed on Wed April 19, 2023 at 1:04 PM PDT

I'm a fifth-year debater with MVLA and generally flay. Flowing all speeches except for cx.

Spreading is fine, just be cohesive. (Or just drop speech docs)
I hate funky evidence ethics but I love indicts for those ethics! misreading or lying about cards will result in lowered speaker pts or an auto drop.
Spicy debate is cool but don't be rude !
No discriminatory language is permitted; depending on the situation, it will result in an auto drop.
Tech > Truth

Argument expectations -

Extensions:

Collapse to make all of our lives easier, PLEASE. Extend necessary link chains and impacts during summary; if only one team extends, that’s essentially an automatic win. If neither team extends through summary, I’ll evaluate based on previous speeches but both teams will lose speaker points.

Weighing:

impact analysis/world comparison/weighing in general is more likely to win you the round. Remember to warrant phrases like "timeframe" and "magnitude" instead of just throwing them around. If only one team weighs that’s a massive advantage for them. If neither team weighs, I’ll evaluate the arguments based on my own knowledge which will likely result in a decision you don’t like.

Other:

Signpost/roadmaps:

Just do it. I am not exactly well known for my ability to flow capably, so tell me where I should be looking instead of leaving me to find it on my own.

Theory(PF):

I will only evaluate good theory, so if it's run badly it will be an auto drop.

Ks are cool, i personally find paradox ks amusing!

That being said, I am a passionate proponent of anti-disclosure theory(not sorry east coast)! It’s your freedom to disclose just don’t force it on others. I will not be voting off of disclosure unless the other team completely ignores their theory argument. I also don't love pseudo theory, but if run well I might just vote off of it. Try to define all interps and responsibilities. have fun with it!

Evidence:

I'll probably ask you to drop the card if you can't find it in 5 minutes max. Do not lie about your cards, even if you miscut it. If I find that a team falsified evidence, depending on the severity it could result in an automatic win for their opponents and/or contacting tab and their coach.

Non-PF Debaters:

I have 0 experience with parli, LD, cx, congress, literally any type of debate other than pf. Please explain rules to me and keep your opponents accountable. However, if your opponents violate a certain rule, you will need to bring up the rule on the NSDA website or the tournament rules.

- (partially) Written by Audrey Tsai MVLA <3

Sumya Paruchuri Hire

Last changed on Sat May 6, 2023 at 8:54 AM CDT

hey im sumya! (they/them)

woodlands '25

please put me on the chain! please have an email chain/speechdrop/file share if it's online- woodlandssp@gmail.com

TLDR: Read whatever you want, I am a firm believer in trying to stay as tab as I can. The only time I think judge intervention is warranted is if there’s some form of an education or equity violation. Obviously do not read anything that is explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. Other than that, if you just extend a warrant and do proper weighing I am willing to vote on anything.

Shortcut

K- 1

K Aff- 1

Phil- 1

Theory- 2

T- 3

Tricks- 3

Trad and Lay- yes I can eval them, but pretty please don't make me

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

general:

- tech>truth

- debate is a game with educational benefits

- don't make debate an unsafe place because i have no qualms voting you down for unethical behavior

- please be clear when you talk, it makes all of our lives easier, if you can't talk clear and fast, talk clear

- im willing to vote on anything as long as it's not discriminatory

- make sure to weigh! it's super important and really helps crystalize the round

- I LOVE META WEIGHING <3

- please make the round fun for you, and even better for everyone involved

- read literally anything you want, i probably am somewhat familiar with it

- for the love of all things holy, engage with the framing debate, unless you're both reading util, then please don't waste time on framing bc no one cares (unless it's like sv vs ext 1st)

- i love dense lit, so please read a phil case if you have it, dw about me not knowing your lit base bc a) you should be able to explain it in your case/cx/extensions b) i probably do know it

- dont over adapt for me, debate the way you want to

- yes i'll eval friv args if they're funny

- please make the round a little fun in some way, shape or form

- i probably sound very opinionated, but just do whatever's fun for you, because the round is for the debaters not the judge (except for trad debate, i'm probably going to silently cry)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

speaks:

i'll probably give you higher speaks bc anything under a 27 is kind of an L tbh

here are some ways to increase speaks:

- be funny

- include a picture of your pet in the speech doc if there's an email chain

- give me a song rec that i'll listen to during prep and boost your speaks if i like it (for reference of my music taste, i was in the top 0.01% of conan gray listeners)

- do a little dance during your opponent's prep time

here are some ways to decrease speaks:

- being rude in round.

- making the round very messy and hard to eval.

- harassing your opponent during cx/being a hobbledehoy

- my #1 pet peeve is debate bros who are extremely aggressive and assertive, especially over gender minorities- don't let that be you

- if you read util the highest you're getting is a 29.9

- don't be discriminatory, ie. racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specific things

K's:MY FAVORITE KIND OF DEBATE <3 lit ik- psycho (very much know it, i read it for funzies), Queer Theory (just not Edelman, I've never read a word he's written and i don't plan on it), Weheliye, Deleuze, Guattari,

K Aff: be T. b e non-T. be T-adjacent. idc, just represent your lit well

Phil: love phil. authors I've read- Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Rawls, Plato, and others i'm forgetting

Theory: i hate spec shells. but i'll listen to them. good with theory, go for the rvi if you want, go for anything here. friv theory is funny idc what people say

T: for the love of pink please don't read nebel or leslie, I'll sob and then vote on it if you win the flow

Tricks: tricky hobbits- delinieate your spikes, have extrapolations that aren't too far out there- no im not going to vote neg bc they conceded the sand paradox which proves the world is a simulation.

people who've influenced me in debate-

Alex Yoakum, Eric Schwartfeggar, Phoenix Pittman, Ben Erdmann, Isaac Chao, Alli Aldrige (some of my favorite debate people who are amazing)

my wiki for reference

if there are any questions feel free to ask me! i promise i don't bite

ALL EVENTS THAT AREN’T LD

I only have experience in LD and competed a tad in wsd, so I’ll only be able to base my judgement off of that

If you're a msd that wants a coach, hmu and we can talk !

Anupama Patil Stratford Middle School - San Jose

Vidhi Patra Rancho Middle School

sandy dawn peterson Hire None

Sandy D Peterson Hire

Reba Prabhkhar Rancho Middle School

Xinzhou Qin Young Genius, Bay Area Speech and Debate Academy None

Sawyer Rabalais ModernBrain

Ethan Ramos Hire

Last changed on Sat March 18, 2023 at 3:52 PM CDT

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
remember when J.O.T was a thing? I'm from that era

IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it - ps I keep up with everything.

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't act like Trump

witty banter is a plus

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth depends all on you competitors

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - (my loudest YEAH BOI)

Trix/Phil/Theory - the quickest way to torture me

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2022-2023 season!!

jyotsna rathore Joaquin Miller Middle School

Pranav Raval Stratford Preparatory School None

Shobana Ravisankar Stratford Preparatory School None

Chloe Rong Stratagem Learning

Last changed on Sat March 11, 2023 at 7:33 AM PDT

Chloe Rong- DVHS 25' LD and Policy, did ms pf like 4 years ago

put me on the email chain: chloedebate777@gmail.com - label: tournament round #: pairing

Top

Be nice, have fun - a degree of aggression is fun, don't be straight up rude

tech >>> truth, dropped args presumed true - I care about the execution more

exceptions:

a. arguments that are egregiously offensive - just don't be racist :>

b. intentionally obfuscatory or arguments - I will vote on these (very reluctantly) but there is an incredibly low threshold of response

c. if I genuinely have no idea what you are even saying - debate is a communicative activity and if I cannot meaningfully understand you or your argument I won't vote off it. Also applies if your argument is incomplete, I won't pretend you said something you didn't - args have to have claim warrant impact

Speed - I am fine with spreading but clarity>speed always, I'll give you 3 clears before I simply give up. Refer to the previous point on why this matters.

I prefer when arguments in a round actively interact with one another, if you blockfile hack i will be very sad :/

insert rehighlights, read recuttings

run what you're comfortable with instead of following my arg preferences, at the end of the day preferences are just preferences and I'll evaluate the round off the flow

misc

online - record speeches locally if online, flash analytics if possible

I will reward you if you make it fun - ex: high-risk strategies such as 7 minutes of case turns, etc.

extra speaks if you attach a distorted cat photo to the top of your speech doc :>

Prefs:

LARP: 1

K: 2-3

Theory/Topicallity:2-3

K affs:4

Phil: 5

Trix: . .

Policy

Topicality - I enjoy these debates, usually prefer reasonability if the aff isn't clearly abusive but you can sway me otherwise. Have good evidence, do good comparison and you will have my heart - DON'T SPREAD THROUGH THE LBL

Impacts - weigh em

Ks on the Neg - Im good on Ks and ran them pretty often - just explain it well. I prefer Ks that actively interact with the affirmative. Try not to only read off a blockfile and contextualize everything in round

K affs - not the best judge for this. Don't read planless if you want me to vote for you. Im good for topical K affs.

default to util if no alternative FW is provided

Theory

Most are reasons to drop the arg not the team but if that's dropped I'll vote on it - condo is probably good unless there's heavy abuse. Its always a valid 2ar but I probably won't vote off of like 1 or 2 condo.

If I judge a fairness bad argument I will immediately vote for the opponents in the spirit of unfairness :D

Nishantha Ruwan Academy of Higher Learning None

Chris G Ryan Hire

Rohan Sachdev Hire

Last changed on Sun May 14, 2023 at 5:19 AM PDT

People in stitches over hilarious dog who looks permanently ...

Add me to the chain at: rohsach@nuevaschool.org

TL;DR:If you weigh, signpost, terminalize and don’t run problematic args then I’ll be happy! Give solvency: it is not enough to give a speech telling me about the harmful impacts of something, I can't vote for you if you don't tell me how the plan impacts the issue.

Please give content warnings for any arguments related to mental health before the round starts.

Hey y’all, I’m Rohan (he/him) and this is my fifth year of Varsity level competition on the Nueva team (I’m a senior). I exclusively compete in Parli. Let me know if there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible to you. Everything in this paradigm is just preferences for people who know what they are. Everything I say here is secondary to my desire to make the space educational/enjoyable, so keep that in mind.

Random musings:

Be nice to your opponents! Laughing at someone’s speech is really harmful and has made me feel not great after rounds, I’ll tank speaks for it. Don’t be problematic or violent (imperialist, racist, sexist, antiqueer, ableist, etc), I’ll drop you. Give content warnings generally, if you're unsure then just give one anyway.

Presentation really doesn't matter to me: rhetorical flair is cool but it isn't going to help or hurt you on my ballot. I don't care what you are wearing or if you have your camera on or anything like that, please don't run theory on that sort of stuff.

Weighing must be more than a claim, you need a warrant and an implication attached to it. I feel like it's super common for debaters to say "our contention outweighs on magnitude, therefore we win the round," which is not an argument. You need to tell me how your argument outweighs on magnitude (it impacts more people, more people die, etc etc etc) and give me a reason to prefer that voter for me to consider it when filling out my ballot.

Your POIs should be good faith questions. I'll tank your speaks if you try to use your opponents time to say something along the lines of "xyz is true, what do you have to say about that?"

I WILL DISCLOSE, it is vital to gaining educational feedback and eh why would you worry about results for no reason. Written feedback is annoying to type out so I might not do that and you should record. If you are confused then interrupt me, it’s easier than waiting till the end.

I’m tech over truth, meaning that if you make an argument, I will put it on the flow - the sky is orange (hahaha get it bay area smoke vibes) if y’all tell me it is.

An impact is not an impact unless I can clearly see the link to death, dehumanization, or suffering. This means that I will always vote for a terminalized impact over a nonterminalized one absent any other framing on the flow. The economy going up or down is not a terminalized impact - why do I care that the DOW Jones loses 200 points cuz of the plan.

A warrant can take forms–I don’t have any defaults on whether to prefer analytics/empirics etc but I’m not gonna flow something which you assert to me, back it up with something. You don’t need a citation on every point, but if you tell me that the economy is gonna go up, you have to tell me how that happens.

I autoextend all plantexts, advocacies, ROB texts, and procedural interpretations. You have to extend everything else, but I don't think it makes sense to drop someone for omitting the words "extend the alternative." This is important because it means I won't kick your text for you, you have to explicitly tell me to do that.

As a competitor, I always spread faster than I think I am spreading, or can understand and flow. I always suggest that you should start at whatever speed you want, and then I’ll slow you down from there. I genuinely wish that speed theory had a better brightline to discourage debaters from intentionally spreading out novices. Just please be chill and understanding of different tolerance levels so I don’t have to intervene :)

Case:

Anything goes really: obviously if you are going to read your generic small businesses DA then I’ll consider it but I tend to find that very specific case debates with solid weighing create fascinating rounds to watch.

I default to: magnitude>probability>timeframe>anything else.

Structural violence framing is my favorite impact to read because I think it has the most real world value, so definitely go for it.

CPs:

CPs should always have warrants for mutual exclusivity. I ran some wacky CPs during my competitive career (ocean iron fertilization and Virginia should annex DC oops) so have fun with it.

I listen to the first two sentences of a counterplan. I’m not listening to your 4 paragraph CP (or plan, unless the res forces you to). I’ll listen to delay/consult/50 states/other weird CPs but you are really gonna be hurting the scowl lines on my forehead at that point

I have read and answered condo; I don’t really lean one way or the other. Pretty much goes the same way for all the CP theory stuff: I’ll evaluate everything so just be prepared to justify what you do.

Kritiks:

I suppose I went for kritiks most as a competitor (ran mao in front of almost every K judge I had in junior year). That doesn’t mean that I’m going to hack for the K, but it’s just the form of technical debate I have the most experience with.

With that in mind, I have a very narrow base of Ks which I am intimately familiar with. I exclusively stuck to cap and it’s variants (primarily Mao with a PPW alt, but I’ll understand your others) as well as various versions of state theory (anarchism, security, etc). That’s not to say i haven’t hit or can’t evaluate anything else (have your POMO debate and I’ll have just as much fun as you do) but I just have my unwavering set of preferences.

I would prefer that every K which doesn’t fit inside this bunch to have a thesis. Even if it’s 10 words, a clean thesis makes the round so much easier to evaluate and your ideology so much easier to understand and apply to other contexts (cuz at the end of the day I’m here to learn from y’all asw :))). Alts should also always have an overview at the top explaining what they are. If I don’t know what your alt does then you're kinda screwed. If your opponents ask this question and you don’t have an answer which lets me know exactly how the alt is solving and what world you envision, you are going to make it very hard for me to pick up your alt later.

I don’t like one off t-usfg Strats which don’t have significant engagement with the kritik. I think that tusfg is too often used to police the creativity and ideological engagement of primarily marginalized debaters, reinforcing the white circlejerk of the debate space through abstract appeals to procedural fairness. I’ll definitely evaluate the shell, but I’d prefer you didn’t use it as a one size fits all shield to ignore the 1AC. Thus, I default to layering the kritik above all theoretical positions within the round. The layering debate is rlly important for tusfg vs k debates, you have to tell me why your voters come first otherwise the K is always gonna be the easier out.

With that said, it is 10000% the responsibility of the debater to provide explanations of kritikal (or general) args to less experienced debaters. I really enjoy having some flex time at the end of the ACs and NCs for that, just ask if you would prefer that time. I rlly like disclosure as a norm, it would be fun if that became standard on the parli circuit. I'm not gonna normalize it with my ballot tho: unless you can provide me with a verifiable brightline for disclosure, FPIC, or any other weirdness, just read TUSFG.

If you run Kant, you probably kant get above a 26 because your author is bad and racist.

Links of omission are a little strange and I don’t really like them. You need to either a) give me links to the specific aff or b) tell me why this round specifically is key to not omit whatever your theory is because otherwise I’m going to be inclined to buy the no links.

Theory/T:

I go for theory sometimes, and I’m definitely familiar with it so pop off. Interps must be read twice and slowly with texts in chat.

I don't have anything against friv theory. Honestly, I found the brightline between "legitimate" shells and those that are "frivolous" to be rlly arbitrary. It is the responsibility of the team reading friv theory to make sure the round will be accessibile, but that is true for any argument in debate.

Defaults:

CI > Reasonability: reasonability will be dropped without an explicit brightline
Theory is drop the debater
Theory is apriori
RVIs are good
Accessibility > education > fairness > anything else
Text of the interp > spirit of the interp

Golsa Sadrieh Beverly Vista Middle School None

Subrata Saharoy Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Vishal Saxena Stratagem Learning None

Rayan Sengupta Hire

Lucy Shah La Reina None

Anthony Shen Redwood MS

Abdrahman Sheriff Athens Debate

Rohit Shrivastava Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Michael Shurance Athens Debate

Last changed on Sun April 23, 2023 at 1:07 PM PDT

Michael Shurance

Paradigm:

Framework:

Debate is a game. I won't drop arguments I disagree with or that are hard to prove unless they are inherently racist, sexist, or discriminatory in some fundamental sense which makes debate inaccessible. AGAIN INACCESSIBLE: An example of these would obviously be like (white supremacy, nazism/racial superiority,) I will drop anyone advocating for those positions. We all deserve respect and fairness.

Theory:

Theory is fine if theres actually abuse from the Aff (topicality, specs, ect) , or the neg, (such as a condo, or a pic). I will vote on a good theory.

Multiple theories are not good. If theres abuse, run a theory, if it seems prepped im more suspicious. Don't time skew on purpose.

K's:

If the K links into the AFF's solvency, or their plan text in some fundamental sense, then its acceptable. The alternative needs to exist, and you have to explain why I shouldn't buy a permutation. A k without an alternative is just a harsh judgement of the status quo, which the aff likely agrees with. Unless you present an alternative world that passing the plan text leads to not being possible its just a try or die for the aff.

Advocacies are not conditional, if you kick out off an alternative I will instant vote you down. Everytime you kick out of an advocacy you work against the K you ran, making it seem trival or insincere. Its a slap in the face on critical literature, and i don't believe you should argue strongly for K's you don't have conviction about, especially on the aff, and because you don't believe the framework means that my vote for the advocacy is also insincere which 1. hurts your solvency/ 2. destroys your movement. which turns your K into handwashing garbage.

Speed:

talking fast is fun, speeding is semi fine, but if you get slowed or clear'd please comply. I think access is very important.

Ballot:

Flow is very important on how I judge, whether or not your opponent did a good job attacking your position or argument weighs heavily in my mind. Key arguments are more important then quantity, but if you have alot of arguments ill weigh them as well.

Anoop Singh Joaquin Miller Middle School

Paramvir Singh Stratford Preparatory School None

Ramanuj Singh The Golden State Academy None

Ansh Singhal Hire

Zachary Sinha Hire

Anne Smith Hire

Last changed on Sun April 30, 2023 at 5:17 AM PDT

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu. Yes, I want to be on your email chain

Experience: Currently, I'm a second year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, smart analytics, and 2AC/1AR theory. I tend to be less willing to vote on Ks or friv theory/T than most judges. I don't like progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, and big questions. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

General: In most formats, I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green), I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD), as long as your opponent can keep up. I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem with fast conversational speaking.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I hate powertagging and other forms of bad evidence ethics with a burning passion. If it is particularly egregious and raised as a voting issue, I will vote the powertagging team down.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. If you lie about being unconditional and the other team makes a voting issue out of it, I will vote you down. I default to the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. It’s difficult, but not impossible to convince me otherwise. I'm open to arguments that perms involving sequencing are unfair. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks in policy, prog LD, and parli, but I think I'm less inclined to than most. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible unconditional alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap, neolib, and SetCol; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I like anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) more than most judges.

While I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive, especially in extemporaneous formats like Parli. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

PF :Public forum was designed to be an event that is accessible to a lay audience and the community benefits immensely from having a slow, jargon free event. I’m vehemently opposed to spreading and progressive arguments (Ks, theory, topicality, plans, and counterplans) in PF. I’m fine with PFers who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation or who talk about rules or definitions when necessary in a non-jargon heavy way. I don't like it when people bring up new arguments in final focus or try to dominate crossfire.

Policy: I’m mostly a policymaker judge. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read 4 or are super contradictory.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). You should take some POI, but I won't look down on you at all if you turn away a point of information after you have taken two that speech (or it's protected time, of course). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

Katelynn Smith Athens Debate

Last changed on Mon May 1, 2023 at 3:53 PM CDT

My background consists of doing PF debate for a year and LD debate for 3 years. I am a traditional LD debate judge, as I am from West Texas where that is the primary type of debate. I was apart of the NSDA, TFA, and UIL circuits, where I competed in a variety of tournaments at the local, regional, and national level. I currently attend Texas Tech University where I am active within the Student Government Association and various other student organizations.

As a judge in a traditional LD debate, my primary role is to evaluate the arguments presented by both sides and determine which side made the more compelling case. I will base my decision on the quality of the arguments, the strength of the evidence presented, and the persuasiveness of the speakers.

I believe that the most important aspect of any debate is the clash between the two sides. I want to see both sides engage with each other's arguments and respond to each other's points in a way that advances the debate. I appreciate when debaters demonstrate a deep understanding of the topic and the issues at stake, and can articulate their ideas clearly and concisely.

In terms of argumentation, I expect debaters to provide well-reasoned and logically coherent arguments, supported by relevant evidence. I am not swayed by emotional appeals or unsupported claims. I prefer to see debaters engage with the complexity of the issues, rather than relying on simplistic or reductionist arguments.

I also value effective communication skills, such as clear enunciation, good pacing, and appropriate use of body language. I appreciate when debaters are respectful and professional towards each other, and towards me as the judge.

In terms of the format of the debate, I expect both sides to follow the standard LD structure, with clear and coherent introductions, contentions, and rebuttals. I expect both sides to stay within their allotted time limits and to respect the rules of the debate.

Ultimately, my goal as a judge is to fairly evaluate the arguments presented by both sides and determine the winner based on the strength of their arguments and their overall performance in the debate.

Diane Song Hire None

Kiran Sontakke Stratford Middle School - San Jose None

Shashidhar Srinivasa The Golden State Academy

Aarya Srinivasan Hire

Srini Sunkara Redwood MS

Charlie Synn Del Mar Montessori School

Last changed on Sat January 14, 2023 at 6:53 AM PDT

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

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

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

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

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

Rohan Tawade Crystal Springs Uplands School None

Varsha Thalange Joaquin Miller Middle School None

Audrey Tsai Egan Junior High School

Last changed on Thu May 25, 2023 at 1:00 PM PDT

Hi! I'm in my fifth year of public forum debate as part of the MVLA speech and debate team. I've solely debated in west coast circuits other than TOC. Flay (flow all speeches other than cross)

TLDR (READ THIS): Be polite, follow PF rules and evidence ethics, and have fun. The best rounds are when both teams can vibe together.

Tech > truth (with the exception of really abusive arguments or link chains that just logically don't make sense)
Don't make evidence calls longer than they should be (I'll just drop the card after a few minutes)
Send the fully cut card
Good cards > good analytics > bad cards > bad analytics
No "debater math." Seriously I will drop the card
Fully extend (links and impacts with the card name) in summary and FF or I'll drop the argument
Please weigh (more detail below)
Collapse!!
Just signpost and provide a brief offtime roadmap to make all our lives easier
Theory, speed, evidence, discrim stuff below in more detail

General Preferences:

Time yourself. Turns can be extended on their own as long as your opponent also extends the contention you're turning, otherwise you have a bit more work to do about extending their link + impact. Voting on clever turns is really fun for me, just make sure to explicitly say "link/impact turn" so I flow it as offense.

Some of my favorite rounds to debate and judge have been because of interesting framing. Ideally, frameworks would be brought up in constructive but rebuttal at the latest. If no framework is brought up, I'll default to utilitarianism. Personally, I think frameworks about things like structural violence can be really effective if done correctly (tell me why it's so important), and good critiques of util can be really interesting. I love well-implicated overviews and interesting definitions, just make sure to explain them.

Make sure to WEIGH! Make the round as easy for me to evaluate as possible by weighing. If one team weighs, I usually default to their weighing. If neither team weighs, I will have to evaluate the round based on my own understanding of the world, and no one wants that. Metaweighing is cool, I think more teams should metaweigh but it's not a huge deal if you don't.

Speed:

If you spread, I want your speech docs (send them to your opponents too if they ask). I will yell CLEAR if I can’t follow. Do NOT spread in novice. Regardless of your speed, please speak clearly.

Evidence:

Bad evidence will get dropped and if the evidence ethics is really bad, it may result in an auto drop, but you have to point out faulty evidence to me; otherwise I won’t evaluate it. Indicts are amazing if you're clear about them.

I won’t intervene unless I really have to, and I’ll take your evidence at face value (unless the evidence ethics is so bad it’s incomprehensible), so you have to indict the evidence if there’s any problem with it and directly tell me if you want me to call for it/evaluate it. There's no need for me to be part of your email chain/doc share unless there are evidence ethics violations.

Progressive arguments:

Novice: Do not run theory or Ks unless there is a really egregious violation. I will not vote on disclosure theory or paraphrasing theory in novice, that’s really exclusive to the debate space and it’s not suitable for a novice pool.

Varsity: Theory and Ks are fine. I think the critical evaluation of debate is really important but you still have to convince me why I should prefer your progressive argumentation over the resolution. At the highest levels of debate (TOC, nats, high elims), I’m more inclined to vote on anti-paraphrasing but I usually won’t vote on disclosure unless it really is a norm at that specific tournament and it’s very well argued.

Ask me any questions you have about my paradigm before the round!

William Turner ILearn Education

Wyllene Turner Able2Shine

MANOJ UNNIKRISHNAN Redwood MS

Agam Vasani The Golden State Academy

Eduardo Velazquez ModernBrain

Aishi Vijayaraghavan Hire

Mitu Walia Brooks Debate Institute

Lydia Wang BASIS Independent Silicon Valley

Ewan Webster Woodside Priory School

Last changed on Thu May 11, 2023 at 9:39 AM PDT

Email in case you want to start an email chain: itswebster2@gmail.com

I'm a sophomore at Woodside Priory and I've been debating PF for 3 years, this paradigm is set up for PF judging.

Fake Flow / Flay. Not a flow, not lay.

Funny theory shells = high speaker points, but I won't vote on them

General Stuff:

Tech over truth if it's got an actual link.

Weighing: Do it. Probability weighing is not weighing, I want to see actual evaluation of the impacts, not how likely they are to happen. Also, you can say the weighing mechanism, but try to go further. If you just say "timeframe" and move on, I probably wont evaluate it. Generally, you should have reasoning for everything, and weighing is not different. Interactive weighing is great (prereq, short-circuit etc.), as long as it actually works.

Interaction: If there is no interaction whatsoever, at least on my flow, I'll default on NEG, and both teams will get relatively low speaks. If there is interaction, I'll look through my flow and see which team gets cleanest access to their voters.

Progressive Debate: Go for it, just make sure it's legitimate. I'll give extra speaks if you successfully run something like shoe theory. However, I don't recommend theory or k's for Novice debate.

New Arguments: DO NOT bring up new points in 2nd Summary or Final Focus. Bringing up new evidence to back up a previous response is no good either.

Calling for Evidence: Go for it, don't steal prep while your opponents find their evidence. If you want to call out the evidence, go for it, I just hope not to see a round where the only voter is the legitimacy of one card.

Disclosure: Generally I'll try to disclose at the end of the round, but the quality of the oral RFD may vary. If you want more in depth feedback, it will be in the RFD on tabroom.

Speeches:

Constructive: Not much to say here, look at the speaker points section for stuff on spreading.

Rebuttal: Off time roadmap isn't necessary unless you do some weird structure. However, you should be signposting as much as possible. No need to reexplain the opponent's response, but I should be able to tell where you are on the flow.

Summary: If you didn't weigh in rebuttal I want to see weighing in this speech. Make sure you are getting some good interaction between the Aff and the Neg. As usual, signpost. Collapsing is fine, go for it. If you drop an argument I will still evaluate it, it will just be hard for you to win on that argument.

Final Focus: No new arguments whatsoever. Crystalize the round. Weigh a lot. On voters: I want legitimate voters. Don't just say "Our contentions 1, 2 and 3 are the only points you should consider", bring up actual voters that apply for BOTH the Aff and the Neg. Also, try not to go over time by more than a few seconds, especially with this speech.

Crosses: I will not flow any cross speeches. I'll listen, but unless you bring it up during a subsequent speech, I won't evaluate anything said in the decision. If you do get a concession, just bring it up in the speech after and I will evaluate it in the round. Concessions are not them misspeaking or something minor like that, make sure the concession is an actual point of a link chain conceded by your opponents.

Post-Round: My decision will be final. If you don't agree with it, I understand, but please don't try to argue about it after I disclose. It's not productive, and it's usually just a drag for me, your opponents, and maybe even your partner. That being said, if you have questions about the decision, or you want some advice, feel free to ask away, and I'll do my best to answer it all.

Speaker Points:

Basically you start the round with 28 speaks, this will probably increase if you simply debate well in the round. Here are a few ways you can raise or lower your speaker points:

Timing: Don't go too far over on speeches, don't try to steal any prep, and generally make the most of your time during speeches and cross. I'll be keeping track of time, but I won't hold up my phone until you're more than 10 secs over speech time.

Speech Structure: Rebuttal, Summary and Final Focus should all have clear signposting when extending AND responding/frontlining. If I can't tell where you are on the flow, I can't have an accurate vision of the round. Even if it seems clean to you, it might not look like it to me, which can be problematic when coming to a fair decision. So just make sure to tell me where you are on either side of the flow. Off-time roadmaps are fine, or you can just say which part of the flow you are on at the beginning of your speech.

Speed: Going fast is ok, if you annunciate I will understand it. What is more important is making sure your opponents can understand it. If your opponents are obviously new to debate, I don't want to see very much spreading. If you are both at a similar level, talk as fast or as slow as you would like. Just make sure that you are speaking clearly. If I can't hear you, it's harder to make a fair decision, even if I don't necessarily dock speaker points for it.

Cross: You can be aggressive to a certain degree, but remember that it's just a debate and there's no point in being rude. Its fine if cross gets heated, that's normal, but don't let it escalate into a shouting match. Also, don't let your opponent dominate cross. If your opponent is dominating cross, try to fight back and ask for a question. If I see that one person is dominating cross and the other gets like 10 seconds of speaking time, the person with less time will probably lose speaker points. However, if you are controlling cross by being overly aggressive, that's not great either.

Non-PF Judging: I'll do my best to evaluate it off the flow.

Grace Wieland Westridge School

Max Wiessner Honor Academy

Last changed on Fri May 12, 2023 at 10:12 AM PDT

Max Wiessner (They/Them)

Put me on the email chain! Mack.love.17@gmail .com

also please set one up ASAP... one of my biggest pet peeves is starting late bc we don't have emails and docs from people :' )

disclosure:

especially true for online tournaments: unless there is a performative value in not disclosing, you should share any carded evidence with everyone in the round (or at least your judge)

I have audio processing issues that are especially bad with virtual debates, pls share your cards so I can know what/who you're reading

********************note: disclosure standards are different for CHSSA tournaments*************************

any hateful/disrespectful language/actions geared towards other competitors (homophobia, racism, misogyny, antiblackness, etc.) or anything that is straight-up bigotry will reflect in your individual speaker scores and may affect my decision. if I find the issue to be excessive, as the judge, I reserve the right to end the round and have tab step in.

my background:

I’ve been debating policy for CSUF for 3 years. (do NOT prioritize speed over clarity, be even clearer with your analytics). I recently took up IEs as well (poi, poetry, and extemp). I currently coach modified parli, PF, and LD. I'm a K debater, but I’ve run all types of arguments and have come to be fairly well-versed in traditional DAs & policy arguments as well as K arguments. But I don't know everything, so please be sure to thoroughly explain your arguments and theories of power.

I believe debate is intended to be a performance that allows us to articulate how we feel and a space to forward methods of survival or existence and alter subjectivities. I also think we tend to get lost in who can read more instead of who’s saying the most “valuable” things. (truth >tech) If I’m in the back, just run whatever you’re most comfortable with! As long as you explain and impact it out, pretty much anything can be a voter for me.

DA’s:

please give some form of impact calculus that helps me to evaluate which argument should be prioritized with my ballot. I’m looking for a comparison between the impacts offered in the round, not just a “we win on timeframe. We win on magnitude.”

CP’s:

I love a good counter plan as long as it is competitive and you can fully solve for the impacts of the AFF with some sort of net benefit. If you don't have a DA with ur CP, you need to go hard on the net benefit.

K’s:

I love K arguments (I usually run arguments about set col, cap, migrants, antiblackness, and/or trans/queerness, so those are the lit bases I know best) Just please EXPLAIN your theory and all of its intricate details as if you assume I know nothing about it (because I might not). Also be clear about what the aff does, how it does it, who does it, etc. Sounds silly, but is often overlooked

Performance K:

Love them. As long as your performance is central to the aff, and you can explain to me why, I love to see it.

K on neg:

See above for general K stuff. As long as you have a good link and a good alt/action that you are proposing, go crazy.

FW v K’s:

I’m pretty split on these debates. Fairness isn’t a voter to me, especially because the K team will probably just tell me that debate isn’t ever fair for [fill in the blank] and I’ll agree. I think in-round impacts matter just as much as the ones that come from a plan text. If you want to win on FW, you need to explain to me what’s missing from the K, what’s bad about their form of debate, or what the next harm is.

I won’t vote just because “it’s unfair”... Next... In all seriousness tho, you need to be able to explain to me what the aff has done that has impacts that would outweigh their solvency. most of the FW stuff above applies here too.

Theory in LD:

idk how I feel about it bc I don't have a lot of experience here. If you do choose to run it then you'll have to explain a lot.

Misc:

you are a person outside of the debate... Please make me aware if you are uncomfortable either in the round or due to external factors so we can find a way to re-create a safe space
you can call me max. getting called judge makes me feel awkward lol
if they drop an argument, you need to tell me why to care. what's the impact? how does that reflect on their model of debate or their solvency or their [insert filler here]?
I start everyone at a 27.5 and bump you up from there. It makes the most sense in my brain to go up with each speech as new args/iterations are presented. Scores usually average in the 28.2-29 range
yellow is the worst highlight color. Pls don't feel like you need to re-highlight everything before the round, you won't be marked down. Just know if I make a weird face, it's the yellow lol

Thomas Xiao Hire

Lily Ye Hire

Krishna Yelisetti Dougherty Valley Bridge

Alfred Yeung Joaquin Miller Middle School

James Yu Bret Harte

Eric Yue Bret Harte

Last changed on Thu May 11, 2023 at 11:12 AM PDT

Hey,

Call me eric or judge, i use he/him pronouns, im a varsity parli main at leland, i know other debate events though! (less of policy lol)

General things:

more flow than lay
All debaters should adjust to the slowest preferred pace by the panel of judges

If you have 1 lay and 2 flows, go lay

general speaks are around 27.5-28
I will follow the tournament rules and disclose accordingly if allowed
tech>truth, will evaluate whatever args you throw at me though you have to explain things clearly if i may not know background.
I wont call for evidence, it is up to the opponents to question unwarranted and suspicious arguments

If you dont question it, i will default to believing the evidence as true

I like to flow on paper, so let me know if you want me to flow on a diff sheet
i usually wont flow cross, but i will listen to them :D

What I like, thus what you should do:

Sign postings,
road maps,
clear introduction/transition to a different subject,
EXPLANATIONS AND ELABORATIONS (if you don't explain, I will not buy them),
A few flushed out contentions instead of like 8 different short contentions with no evidence, explanations, impacts, etc
clear background info

Like if topic is war in Jordan or something, I'm sorry... but I'm def not the most knowledgeable about what you are saying if you dont give background info

theory is like... okay, i guess, not the most well versed in technical debate, but run theory if you explain them well enough with clear impact

What I don't like:

Any rude, racist, sexist, or discriminatory comments of any sort, I will tell tab if you do any of the things I mentioned here
Laughing at opponents or even your partner (excluding LD ofc)
I am okay with spreading I guess, but if either I or the opponent(s) say "slow" or indicate that you are going too fast, then you should slow down.
The Golden Rule: treat others the way you want to be treated

Debate is an educational and chill activity and everyone here wants and deserves to learn and grow in a safe and protected environment, if you violate that and prevent that from happening, I will use my powers as a judge (and I don't want to do that to anyone)

Feel free to have a casual conversation with me before/after the round (if I don't have a round to get to) about any of my experience as a debater and I have some interesting stories that I can tell LOL

Good luck and Have fun :D

Sadaf Zahoor Stratagem Learning

Sophia Zhang Egan Junior High School None

Victor Zhang Stratagem Learning None

William Zhang Alannah Debates

Yali Zhang Joaquin Miller Middle School

Login to Tabroom:

CHSSA Middle School State Championship

2023 — NSDA Campus, CA/US

Debate Paradigm List

Judges