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

In a debate round, I prefer to see a good amount of evidence followed by logic as to why this evidence is important. Make sure your speech is at a good pace so I can understand the arguments you are making.

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.

alexanderbae30@gmail.com

tech>truth

send docs always

30 speaks for everyone, unless ur a meanie

hello,

1. i dont hate you

2. my last statement is lying to you

3. my second statement is lying to you

4. you already hate my paradigm

im joking

or am i

i'm not kidding

but i am kidding

or am i

abt me:

junior - public forum(JOIN PF, we meet Tuesdays L-209)

i did policy for freshman year + half of sophomore year

topicality demon

i accept bribes, junk food is fine too

any harry potter, suits, or the office reference(+0.1 points)

any niners or warriors reference(+0.3 points)

good food/snacks (+0.5 points) - i can clarify whats considered "good" before round <-- for fairness reasons this is a joke, or is it......

Rhetoric:

SUPER SUPER top line stuff

- be nice, no rude remarks, bad stuff, any disrespect to me or the other judge

Pet peeve:i hate it when people LIE in the debate - like if they didn't drop smthn and u stand up and say they did imma call cap real quick on my flow

- literally just warrant stuff out and TELL me WHY and HOW for everything

have fun!

SEMI TOP LEVEL STUFF

- i'm usually like really frickin expressive so you can tell if i like or dislike an argument based on my reaction to how ur saying it - if i look confused/lost that means i have no idea what u just said.

-be nice to ur opponents

- anything that ends with -ist or -phobic in relation to social harm and you'll see just how much i'll do...

-no scoffs, bad looks, side eyes, mean stuff

- be nice to me as well or auto loss w/ bad score i don't mind giving u a bad grade if u don't have some respect

- treat me like a parent - not a high schooler, but if i joke w u thats my own prerogative

- if i see u on ur phone AND ur NOT timing lowest score i can give u - Mr.Liu said it was fine

- just don't be a douche

- enough with the nice stuff now

- warrant stuff out i don't wanna hear claims for an hour and half straight

- defense is NOT sticky you need to extend responses throughout the debate cant just say they didn't respond to it and call it a day

- please please please please please do not make me figure out where on the flow you are make sure u signpost

- if its round 3-4 i'm gonna be tired so you please have some energy to wake me up

- make sure that u flush out arguments that u want to be in the 2NR/2AR really well - this can take place in o/vs

- o/vs need to be good and u need to make them contextualize the debate

-just have a good round and don't make it bad

- i'm gonna say this again SIGNPOST PLEASE

- extend extend extend with card author names PLEASE if u don't remembewr at least extend the warranting

- this is more pf ish but u need to weigh

- the 2NR/2AR NEEDS to clarify the debate for me - bring it down to a few issues and tell me why u win

- no i don't disclose unless i'm told to

ASSUME i hAVE ZERO TOPIC KNOWLEDE

ASK ME BEFORE ROUND IF U HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ARGUMENT SPEC STUFF (harms, solvency, disad, topicality).

RHETORIC IGNORE WHATEVER IS BELOW THIS

TLDR

put me on the email chain - bankanakul@gmail.com

i'm usually nice

i usually give a lot of feedback

1. any arg is fine - if it's something not conventionally run on the topic explain it well

2. defense is sticky

3. stuff in ff should be in summary

4. collapse in summaries

5. don't drop arguments (at least the big ones)

6. have fun i guess?

7. if i think ur too rude i'll stop flowing all ur speeches and then evaluate the debate

8. i'm really frickin expressive so if i look confused i am if i start nodding i like what ur saying probably bc i say it in debate woohoo

"steal prep and I'll steal your speaks" - Eli Glickman

tech > truth (i will do my best to not screw you)\

weird stuff - consider absolutely none of this except tech > truth if u are novice

but basically, think of every based judge you've evver seen, that's me

tech ---x------truth ( but at the same time i will call cap)

being chill --x-------being stingy ( i will be stingy in the ballot don't be stingy in round it pisses me off)

K----------x--substance (if ur reading a K, a generic will be ok for you, but a non generic K will be bad for you)

K-Affs--------x-substance ( i hate all K-affs)

Theory--x-------"I don't know how to respond"

Clarity -x------Speed

Spreading --------x----Not spreading

im ok with talking a lil fast that aint a problem

Theory:

i like theory, when its debated well

i hate it when its debated bad

i will reward both sides in a debate if both teams debate it well

dropped theory shell with an impact means no path to ballot for team that dropped it ( as long as i think the theory is valid)

friv theory is ok, but sketchy. like no clothing theory please.

hack for disclo, paraphrasing is bad IN FAST, if its elims with mix panel and more lay than flow - paraphrasing is fine

don't forget to attach an impact to the back (reason to reject the team) - i did this once so...

K

1. i know how it works but i don't like it
2. best way to get my ballot is to NOT run it

TKO

if u know what it is do it, if you don't know what it is don't do it.

(u can ask me before round what it is)

last notes:

be nice and respectful

weigh

dont lie

dont overthink things n just debate

ask if any questions

I've been coaching and judging for 15+ years. So there isn't much I haven't seen or heard. I'm most persuaded by good debating. Please do not be rude or condescending. Please be clear enough to understand. Use your evidence wisely and whereas big impacts are good, realistic impacts are better. The point of debate, for me, is education and communication. Show me you learned something and that you can communicate in an intelligent, well thought out, cohesive manner. People can write out a hundred paragraphs about what they want but at the end of the day I've coached enough champions to tell you that's what it all boils down to. Most importantly, have fun! Love to see students progress and become the natural born leaders we know you all are! And to give some unsolicited advice from a seasoned coach, don't give up. It's may be cliche but somethings are said over and over for a reason. Keep trying, be consistent and you'll be successful! Good luck everyone!

Looking forward to the event where debaters are making good arguments. Try not to talk at 1,000 miles an hour without having a line by line clash or engagement. Please do not spread, it will result in an automatic L.

I am a parent judge new to debate, expecting students to speak slowly and clearly. Please only assume that I would sometimes know about the topic beforehand. In addition, I might need students to explain their voting issues clearly.

Please give me flow paper if you have it.

I did policy for 1.5 years and am now doing PF. Thus, while I know about the 5 stock issues and how to judge this round, I have no idea what the current topic is besides that it has something to do with patents and is wildly complicated. Please define EVERYTHING -- I can't really vote on an argument like injunctions if idk what an injunction is. Define and explain every topic-specific term as much as possible.

The negative team only needs to win 1 stock issue to win the debate -- therefore, just extend 1 or 2 into the 2NR (you don't need to overstretch yourself by extending all 4). On the disadvantage though, the negative doesn't win just by saying the plan leads to this one small consequence so we win the stock issue -- you have to impact it out so that it severely competes with the aff harms. On the other hand, the aff can't cop out of responding to the DA by just saying "our harms outweigh" -- actually debate it out.

Please do some sort of impact comparison between the affirmative and negative -- 2-worlds framing is pretty good at this but frame the round big-picture stuff -- explain how you winning the LBL on 1 argument translates to you winning the stock issue.

If there's a piece of evidence that both teams argue abt during the round, I might just call for it.

How to get a good grade:

SPEAK LOUDLY PLEASE AND DON'T MUMBLE

1. Have different OVs for every speech -- don't just regurgitate the same OV every speech (ensure that it evolves as the round progresses) -- for example, the 2AC OV should ideally cite a concession you were able to make in 1NC CX which brings me to pt 2

2. Actually try to have a productive CX with a preplanned strategy that you can actually use to win the round -- don't just have 3 minutes of nothingness. Additionally, retain your composure during CX (i.e. if your opponent is deliberately avoiding your question, rephrase your question instead of raising your tone)

3. Speak slowly and coherently, especially during final speeches. Speaking faster to say more than your opponents doesn't win rounds -- slowly and logically framing the round does. Thus, focus more on big-picture framing in the 2NR/2AR instead of getting bogged down in the line-by-line.

4. Have fun and have an engaging energy during your speech.

Good luck!

Hey! I'm a High Schooler with ~6years debate/speech experience.

Love to see arguments that are clearly explained - even if it's intuitive to you, I enjoy seeing people go step by step. For my decisions, I like to weigh on the arguments made, impacts can be understood intuitively by me but I'd prefer to hear people explain the direct and indirect implications of any given resolution.

I don't enjoy people yelling POIs out loud, preferably raise your hand, and only say something if they don't respond for a while.

TRY YOUR BEST AND BE RESPECTFUL. I WILL NOT HESITATE TO VOTE YOU DOWN FOR DISRESPECT OR BIGOTRY

Mira Loma HS '22 | UC Berkeley '26

Email: holden.carrillo@berkeley.edu

In high school I competed in PF for 3 years, mostly on the national circuit, and had an average career. I've competed in NPDA in college for 2 years, winning NPTE and a few other tournaments. I coached LD at James Logan and parli at Campolindo last year, and currently coach parli at Piedmont.

Public Forum

TL;DR: I'm a few years removed from the circuit so be aware that I may be unaware of newer norms. Tech > Truth, speed is fine but I don't like blippy arguments/responses, good warranting and good weighing are musts. 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.

Front-Half:

• Speed: Add me to the email chain. I'd like docs sent in the first four speeches, 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: While I paraphrased in HS, I'm not super proud of it. While I'm not a huge stickler for paraphrasing/reading cards, paraphrasing is a bad norm and I'm down to vote for paraphrasing theory if it's run correctly and won.
• 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.

Back-Half:

• Extensions: My threshold for extensions are very very very low. I think that extensions are a silly concept and uneducational (especially in PF). As long as you talk about the argument, it's considered extended. 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 nobody weighs then 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.

Progressive Debate:

• Theory: I'm probably a bit better at evaluating theory debates than LARP ones. 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. For accessibility reasons, if no paradigm issues are read, I'll default to DTA (when applicable), reasonability, and RVIs.
• Kritiks: Anything should be fine, but while I had a few K rounds in PF, most of my K experience comes from parli (i.e. I still don't know if proper alts outside of "vote neg" are allowed in PF, a lot of rules around K's are cloudy for me). There's a lot of literature I'm not familiar with, so please take CX to explain this stuff especially if it's pomo.
• Tricks: I'm a fan of them, don't know why there's so much stigma around them. With that being said, if you're hitting an unexperienced team, my threshold for responses are low, but feel free to run tricks.

Also, uplayer your prefiat offense. Please. Not enough teams do this in PF and it makes my ballot hard.

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/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped. On this note, please do not run afropess if you are nonblack.

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 mixtape
• + 0.5 for a Lil Uzi Vert/Ariana Grande reference in speech
• + 0.1 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, CC good, wipeout, 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 if you weigh/respond to their case for at least 30 seconds in 2nd constructive

If I'm missing anything specific, feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

Parliamentary

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

Case:

• Love it, I'm a case debater primarily.
• Please please please please please terminalize your impacts. For some reason some HS parli teams struggle with this. Tell me why your impact matters, 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. If 2 weighing mechanisms are equally competing with no metaweighing, I'll default to the first one read.
• 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:

• Good with theory, probably the most comfortable with my decisions here.
• 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 my PF background makes me want to see more RVI debates.
• Defaults: CI's > reasonability, DTA > DTD, text > spirit, potential abuse > actual abuse (but as with all defaults, win an argument on the flow and my mind changes)

Kritiks:

• While I'm totally cool with K's, I'm also 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. When competing, I usually run Buddhism, Althusser, or some variation of cap, that's what I'm the most comfortable with. Any common K with a clear topical link should be fine though.
• Don't take the easy way out, write some non-generic links! This isn't necessary, but I feel more comfortable voting for a K with unique links to the topic.
• I feel a lot more comfortable judging K's vs. case/T-FW/dumps than K v K debates (while I really don't care what you run, that's where I'll feel most confident with my decision)

Other:

• If you take away one part of my paradigm it's this: I have a very low threshold for MO responses to the aff. I believe that all neg responses to case should be in the LOC, and while I'll evaluate responses read in the MO, I usually find myself erring aff.
• Speed is cool (top speed like 250-275 depending on how clear you are), but if I say slow and you don't slow then 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.
• I'll evaluate any cheaty CP unless someone runs a shell telling me it's bad.
• 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 you can 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/problematic rhetoric. This should go without saying, but you'll be dropped. On this note, please do not run afropess if you are nonblack.
• 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 please!

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
• + 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, so feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

For LD/Policy:

I have literally zero policy experience and limited LD experience. I know enough to be a decent enough judge, but may be unaware with specific norms on the circuit. Check my parli paradigm for my general thoughts on things!

Quick Prefs:

1 - LARP

1 - Theory

3 - Tricks

3 - K v. Case/T-FW

4 - K v. K

5 (Strike) - Phil

Email chain: derekqchang@gmail.com

Experience: he/him, 3 years PF and 3 years of WSD, 3 year judging, 1 year coaching in the Bay (used to West Coast Spec Debate)

TLDR:

I vote off of impact calc, tech > truth, spreading is discouraged, please signpost and make contentions clear or else I'm not going to consider it in my flow, build off each other

BE RESPECTFUL - I will vote against you and crater your speaks if you are excessively disrespectful

Long Version:

Weighing:

- plz weigh in last 2 speeches, impact calc must include considerations for magnitude, timeframe, probability, weighing of 2 worlds, etc

- impact is really important - even if your opp drops all their args but u have no impact then they still can win (dependent on burden)

- optional but I would HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend mentioning past rebuttals and the contention when giving rebuttals so I can extend them through the entire flow and give opponents the opportunity to respond, having every opportunity for clash is what makes a productive debate

Rebuttals

- tech > truth

- clearly explain your logic, link, what you are attacking, etc.

Summary/Reply

- anything you bring up in 4th speech must have been brought up in 3rd speech or else it won't be weighed and will be dropped from flow

- no new arguments and no new evidence in FF, i will dock your speaks

Cross/POIS

- I don't flow cross or POIs so anything important in cross or POIs that you want on the flow must be reiterated in later speeches

Framework:

- if its something other than CBA, yes bring it up

also plz warrant and extend warrant

Shoutout: Sunny Sun for letting me borrow dis

I am a first-year parent judge. Please speak clearly at good pace. Be respectful. Good luck!

add me to the email chain: amandac0829@gmail.com

i do PF,but lowk treat me as a flow judge im so tired all the time

weigh and terminalize impacts, extend, signpost. when you extend, extend warranting and links, not just impacts.

tell me where you win, what's conceded, etc.

I'm mostly tech>truth but certain arguments are bs, so then I prob won't care if that's just "what the evidence says" I just will not buy it aka

love clash and heated crossx

don't be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc - that's not cool and you will get the lowest speaker points possible

have fun :)

Hi! I'm Olivia (she/her/hers). I'm a high school senior & competed in varsity public forum for four years.

To win my ballet

1. Give overviews and weigh (tell me which arguments are the most important, and why)
2. Terminalize your arguments

Other notes

1. Add me to the email chain: olichia@nuevaschool.org
2. Zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Be kind! :)
3. Tech > truth. I will not intervene, so use consistent logic and complete your arguments
4. I can keep up with speed as long as you are clear
5. If the tournament doesn't specify, I'll give 10 seconds of grace after your speech time ends

Yay have fun

Current college student at UC Berkeley

Add me to email chain: isabelle.cho123@gmail.com (I will be checking if the cards are cut properly & the factualness of it, but it is your duty to call your opponent's out for it, I can't do the work for you)

Did PF for 4 years went to TOC quarterfinals & nationals, a trad debater

Tech> truth (if your opponent says the sky is purple, & u don't refute it, on my flow the sky is purple)

I don't flow cross ex, or vote off it. I have not done PF in a while and have no background knowledge of the topics, so pls take this in mind if you plan on spreading, if I can't understand I will not flow it and I don't really like reading speech docs.

Don't just dump cards and blocks, need some warranting to how it interacts and responds to your opponent's case. Frontline or else all responses will be flowed through. If you don't frontline it will be very hard to win.

Weigh, i also love prereqs, metaweighing, etc

Running prog arguments are risky, i don't vote for disclosure (I'm prob judging for Stephen Stewart or CFL, it was normally a pretty trad tournament, lets just have a normal debate for everyone's sake pretty please, CFL was my favorite tournament in high school, it was always chill, pls let's keep it that way)

I am unfamiliar with majority of Ks, so run at your own risk, will try to evaluate the best I can

Time your opps ⏰ (esp prep time)- i will only time if the debate is taking so long im getting tired. Please do not drag on the debate, if you take too long to find or ask for a card it will come out of prep time. Off time road maps should be 10 secs or less.

Speaks: determined on rhetoric, being on time, organization, cross ex, politeness, good partner chemistry!!!

Good luck in your round!! I hope you have fun and enjoy the tournament! Please buy snacks and support my high school's tournament

Archbishop Mitty 25

add me to the chain: anikchobe25@mittymonarch.com

tech > truth

I'm willing to evaluate any argument that's not explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic etc. The following prefs are based on my familiarity not ideological preference:

1 - Policy, K(setcol/cap/ir), Topical K Affs, T, Theory

2 - High Theory K(Pomo), Non Topical K Affs

3 - Phil

4 - Tricks

Background: I have only debated at the collegiate level. I am most experienced with IPDA and Parliamentary debate.

Paradigm: First and foremost, I expect cordiality between all parties. As a judge I believe my role is to be an outsider that is simply spectating an argument. I prefer debates that tend to ignore trying to convince the judge, but rather beating your opponent with sound arguments and direct clash to their arguments. I will not intervene in the round at all unless I feel it is necessary for clarification. Furthermore, I expect both parties to uphold their burden for the round and clarify exactly what your burdens are if it is not clear. I can handle any pace of a debate and will be able to flow; however, flying top speed to beat your opponent with multiple trivial contentions will not win you any points, unless your opponent fails to address them completely. All in all, I enjoy educational debates with clash and an overall impact to the contention as well as the resolution.

UPDATED FOR RIDGE DEBATES 2024 (POLICY DEBATE SECTION)

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.

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

I err Tech over 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, ndt ceda) 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.

Policy:

- Same as LD, feel free to ask questions not covered in the LD paradigm.

- I think 4-6 is a pretty good number of off. I like having a good amount of case engagement still. Obv, if your a one off team stick to that but I think 4-6 is a good max for me.

- Running multiple CPs is fine
- Full disclosure: I have not judged on the 24-25 policy topic and I am not familiar with it at all so keep that in mind. My first rounds judging on the topic will be ridge debates. Further, in the spirit of full transparency I am not super familiar with IP jargon so keep it to a minimum or at least like send analytics in a doc so I can look up a word I do not know so I fully understand the impact of what your saying.

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 net benefit. Needs to have all components. 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. With that said I DESPISE round report theory or something like must be open text I think cites and bare minimum disclosure solves.

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 good

Condo good

PICs good

Consult CPs bad

Vague alts bad

TW good

Delay CPs are fine

but hey maybe you can prove me wrong

RVIs:

I strongly dislike RVIs - they are ridiculous

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. I would say I have a mid threshold for T and I am open to a full collapse but give a through LBL. 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. TBH I am not super familiar with lots of the academic jargon involved in K lit break it down for me and keep it simple. I am familiar with Wilderson, Paur, Derrida, Ahmed, Kappadia, Lacan. Stay away from super techy academic jargon. Unless you are hitting a critical aff I really do not like psychoanalysis Ks.

Cap K:

Do not read Mao, Stalin, Castro were good people automatic speak tank, DO NOT RUN ANYTHING ABOUT CUBA BEING GOOD. With that said I like cap Ks and vote on them frequently

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

LOVE THEM

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! I usually do not vote on T - FW. Super happy to K affs that make SENSE are organized and do not have technical jargon that even the debater running it does not understand. Know you’re lit and read it proudly and your creativity will be rewarded.

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 like pragmatism and that’s kinda it tbh.
• 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. PLEASE SEND ANALYTICS. ESPECIALLY THEORY SHELLS IN THE DOCS. 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 will. 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.

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 and make my job is easy and write the ballot for me in the last 30 seconds to minute of the NR and 2AR. Debates not that deep - if you don't agree with my decision that's fine but handle your loss with grace and class - trust me it benefits you in the long run. It is statistically impossible that every judge who votes you down is a "Screw" ????

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

Hello! My name is Gi Colby. I have been on the speech and debate circuit for over 7 years, both as a competitor and as a coach. As a competitor, I competed in Extemp and Congress at national tournaments in high school, and now I compete in IPDA at the college level. I am currently an assistant coach at Tierra Linda Middle School in California, and I work under Marty De to coach events like PF, Parli, Congress, World Schools, and Informative events. 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 specific events.

For Interpretation 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. 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. I do not coach in these events, so I am not as experienced in judging them, but I will try my best to give a good score to those who deserve it.

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. Specifically with Parli, I value a team that 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 a basic refutation if you are on the high school level. I want a person who can argue well but also remain collected and composed. I will drop you if you yell at someone else in round. Specifically for Congress, I do not give the winning rank to POs, however, I do respect them enough to give an in-between rank. For PF, I want a well-structured Final Focus, excellent clash, and specifically in this event, I will consider individual performance as well as team performance.

For World Schools (as it is an exception to everything here),I do tend to value the things that you are judged on, like style, content, and strategy. I like a team that is put together, and works well together as a unit, but also has great refutation and a solid framework to the round. I also value speaking more here than other events because a team that enunciates and has pauses in the right areas is a team for me that speaks great. But overall, if you speak clearly, have great points that go with my flow, and you all work cohesively as a team, you have my ballot.

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 more of a flow judge when it comes to debate events and I value clash and refutation heavily. Also, I don't particularly appreciate spreading in any event, so I will not tolerate that, as I cannot flow your points effectively if you speak too fast. I am not scared to drop you if you are rude because regardless of the event, everyone should have respect for each other as basic human beings. I have dropped teams for being rude in the past, and am willing to do it again. But, just to wrap things up, I want you to be passionate about what you are talking about and convey that passion to me. Best of luck!

Hello Debaters,

I am Veena Devarakonda, a parent judge and am happy to meet you all. I truly care about what you have to say. My job is to give you all the points you deserve! So, please help me do that.

Please speak slowly and have clearly outlined arguments. I will attempt to flow but if you speak too fast, I may not be able to keep up. It's your job to make sure my flow is organized through your speeches. Winning arguments are the ones that are enforced, brought up, and defended throughout the round. Any arguments brought up last minute will not win you the round. I value presentation as well, but as long as your speech is understandable, that is good.

Please be courteous to your teammates and opponents. If I see any condescending behavior you will automatically be downed. If you lose one round, you always have room to grow in the future and improve. Most importantly, have fun and all the best!

Background: MBA | Technology Industry Veteran | Parent | Novice Debate Judge

Focus Areas:

• Definition: Clear, non-ambiguous definition of all components of the motion
• Substance: Strong analysis, clear evidence with real-world examples
• Style: Clear and objective communication, strong and continuous delivery of speech, respectful debate etiquette
• Strategy: Effective use of debate theory, ability to anticipate, adhere to topic, respond to opponent's arguments

I have judged Varsity Policy, Parli and LD debate rounds and IE rounds for 10 years at both the high school and college tournament level. I competed at San Francisco State University in debate and IEs and went to Nationals twice, and I also competed at North Hollywood High School.

Make it a clean debate. Keep the thinking as linear as possible.

Counterplans should be well thought out – and original. (Plan-Inclusive Counterplans are seriously problematic.)

Speed is not an issue with me as usually I can flow when someone spreads.

I do like theory arguments but not arguments that are way, way out there and have no basis in fact or applicability.

Going offcase with non-traditional arguments is fine as long as such arguments are explained.

Above all, have fun.

Hello! I'm a parent judge, so please don't speak fast or use much debate jargon. Here is what I will primarily be basing the round off of.

1. Relevance and Source: Will assess whether the evidence is relevant to the arguments presented and the credibility of the source. I will look for facts, statistics, and authorities that are supported by thorough research
2. Emphasis and Discussion: I consider the placement of the evidence within the debate's narrative structure, including how much emphasis was placed on the evidence
3. Quality of Research: Will evaluate the thoroughness and relevance of the research behind the evidence presented.
4. Clash and Debate: Will also consider how well the evidence is debated, including how it is linked to arguments and whether it is properly clashed throughout the round

Just some preferences that I would like to see in round:

• Debaters using their evidence in rebuttals and linking it back to the main point
• Please make sure to signpost
• I am a lay judge, so I would not prefer any circuit debate/progressive debate arguments (K's, Theories, etc)
• Make sure to use appropriate language in the debate at all times
• Impact Weighing: Show me how your impacts outweigh you opponents, and expand on it.

Looking forward for the event and wishing all candidates the best.

Dublin High '26

aayushgandhi134 [at] gmail [dot] com

tech>truth, offense-defense paradigm.

condo is good.

default to competiting interps and judge kick.

i flow on paper.

strike me if read friv theory, phil, tricks or dumb Ks.

not the best for the K.

Background: I did local and natcirc PF for Palo Alto for a few years, we debated at TOC '23 and finaled CA states. I also am a debate advisor and PF coach at Interlake. Please add me to the email chain at danielgarepisholland@gmail.com. Shoutout to Fiona Li - I agree with 99% of her paradigm.

Tl;dr for substance: I will vote off of offense extended through every speech. If both teams have offense I will look to the weighing debate and the link-level, and vote for the team has the least-mitigated link into the most important impact. If neither team have offense left I will presume neg unless given a reason to do otherwise.

Backhalf

Nothing is sticky. If you want defense to be counted as terminal I would implicate it as such

Please slow down maybe 15-20% during the back half

Second rebuttal must frontline all defense and turns at least briefly

PLEASE collapse and BE CLEAR what arguments you are going for. Don't go for too much offense

Prereq and link in weighing are great

Probability weighing is just link-level analysis, which is valuable but do other things as well

Please warrant things! Warranted analytics > unwarranted cards. Do not respond to a warrant with only an empiric

New weighing in first FF is probably OK, but I would prefer weighing to be in summary

Prog

Theory & T are fine

Defaults: no RVIs, CIs > reasonability, text > spirit. Also disclo good, paraphrasing bad, round reports good

Topical K: have evaluated sec, setcol, and cap

K-Aff: have evaluated queer identity, fem identity, fem-IR.

Anything else is new to me but I will do my best to evaluate it

I am a lay judge who has judged at a few tournaments this year, primarily PF debates.

Rule # 1: Be civil and polite to each other, respect boundaries
Rule # 2: See Rule #1

Rule # 3: Speak slow and steady, do not rush yourself, and do your best.

Strongly advise that you stay within the prescribed time limits. And yes, I will deduct points if that doesn't happen.

Off time roadmaps are appreciated. Eye contacts (not awkward ones), hand gestures and voice modulations would it make more engaging for me.

I do take a copious amount of notes during the round. I intend to provide 3 levels of feedback: overall, individual, and round-specific at the end of every round (if possible within 15 minutes of the finish)

hi I'm aimee, I do ld and I've judged ld, pf and some policy before.

• I don't flow cross
• I don't time speeches- if you'd like me to time for you or your opponent, please let me know

I've done PF for a couple years now under Monta Vista TG and did decently (3x GTOC + Bid leader).

General:

tech > truth

This paradigm is not an end all be all, its simply my preferences in terms of argumentation, feel free to run whatever u want that isn't racist/sexist/etc. Ultimately my job is to adapt to how yall best debate so whether that be slow, fast, substance, a bajillion off, etc - I'll do my best.

put me on the email chain (saanvig2006@gmail.com) or speech drop is also chill

speech docs with cut cards in the correct order sent before the speech are a must in varsity

I will rarely presume unless there are warrants read to do so, I will typically attempt to find some risk of offense that is extended through the last speech.

Prefs:

1 - LARP

2 - Theory

3 - K Affs

4 - Topical K

5 - Tricks

S - Phil/High Theory

Evidence: I will not call for cards unless the LBL on evidence disagreements are really unclear. I think card calling almost always leads to some sort of unwarranted intervention, so most times I'll just evaluate the evidence debates like a regular flow. If there's a really egregious evidence violation (or something that explicitly violates nsda rules) - please stop the round and call an evidence challenge - it saves everyone a big headache.

Speed: Fast debate is good debate. Slow down on tags and a little in the back half (I'll clear you if I can't keep up but a general metric is don't be above 250).

Cross: I don't care that much, I will try to pay attention. Open cross is chill.

Trad: Read whatever you want as long as it's not any kind of -ist. I am good for impact turns, soft left args, framing, or whatever substantive arg you can warrant.

Theory: I'm comfortable with and enjoy theory debate. I am extremely skeptical of "I don't know how to respond" esque arguments - If you're in varsity you should be able to handle the level of debating that comes with

Framing: Read whatever framing arguments you want. Constructive is the best time to read framing arguments, the later you introduce it in the round, the less I'll be happy evaluating it.

Non-Topical K: Performance, etc. are chill. I am generally familiar with many arguments of this sort, pess, killjoy, rage.

Topical K: I have read and hit these arguments. Because K lit tends to be very dense, if I am unfamiliar with your kritik I would highly appreciate descriptive tags that aren't filled with buzzwords. The Ks I'm most familiar with are cap, set col, anthro and securitization.

All that being said, I'm not a very experienced K debater. I'll do my best to evaluate the round in spite of these things but know that there is a risk I may not fully understand what you are saying and that it may affect my final decision.

Phil/High Theory/Tricks: I don't get it. I don't understand most phil things, so I'm going to have a hard time voting for them with no clue what is happening. I barely know what high theory is. I have to read Tricks 500 times to even remotely get what they are saying. I will not purposely hack against these arguments but understand that the chance I really understand what you are saying is LOW.

For LD and Policy

larp: I'm good for whatever

Theory: Good for whatever - I read a good amount of disclosure/paraphrasing/round reports as a debater, I think process cps are probably bad and condo is probably good, but will only formulate my decisions on the arguments you make on those things

T: Good for this

K: read the PF K section - I'm definitely not a great judge for the K if you're reading something that I'm not familiar with

K affs: sure

Tricks/Phil/High Theory: I won't understand anything you're saying.

lmk if yall have any questions!

I consider myself a novice judge, but I do have a PhD in Communication Studies from USC, and a daughter who has competed in various forms of debate for the last three years. Please discuss your frameworks, include road maps, and explain terms and jargon for me clearly. I absolutely hate spreading, but understand it is a part of the competition (especially for many of you in policy). I am good at weighing the strength of arguments, looking carefully at citations, and I do consider if an argument goes unaddressed when flowing. Respect towards your competitors is important, but feel free to attack their evidence or arguments. Let's have fun!

My email is michelle@gradis.us

Hi! If you're reading this I am probably your judge... or at least I hope so!

I am currently a senior competing in and judging for Speech and Debate, and have the most experience in Public Forum, Limited Prep IE's, and Congressional Debate.

I value good sportsmanship - be respectful throughout the debate to all parties.

I do recognize eccentric arguments - but make sure you really explain your linkage and what it means to the debate as a whole.

"Spreading" is ok as long as you are intelligible - this is your responsibility to control, I will not interrupt to ask for a debater to slow down.

Respect time limits as much as possible, but I understand there will be overflow.

Good speaking skills are very important, but remember that being a good debater also means creating a coherent argument throughout the round. Speaking skills will be mostly reflected in speaker points, not my main decision.

Breathe. Own the round. You got this.

Current Public Forum debater (Senior) 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 there 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 more so 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!!

I have 5 years experience debating in parliamentary debate. 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 very well.

first off, tech>truth

Plans---All types of plans are welcome, including out of ordinary ones, as long as you can defend why it is resolutional. Counter-plans are welcome and same with the aff perm on the counter plan. As long as aff can prove the two plans are not mutually exclusive and there is actually benefits to gain, I'll vote for the perm and flow over the advantages that come from the counter-plan. That goes for the neg as well, if the aff perms the CP, tell me why they shouldn't be allowed to do that or why it will actually be worse by running both at the same time. My team once ran a plan to nuke Iran and how it will end the middle east problems, so feel free to run any plan as long as you can prove why it would win the criteria.

Theory---I'm fine with all the theories you try to run if you provide a full shell and proven abuse. The aff just calling fiot is not a viable response to the theories, give me the full responses, also, no time suck arguments.

Kritiks--- I love Ks and frequently run Ks against my opponents, I am mostly familiar with Cap and Fem, although I have met buddhism, gift, and set col. I will vote for aff Ks if they win the framework debate and tell me why this should be the most important thing in round, make sure to include a rotb.

Case---Links to impacts and solvency to plan is important, at the end of the round, what i'll base off of for impacts is the rebuttal. Make sure to tell me why your impacts still stands and why it fits the criteria the best. Prob vs Mag, aff vs neg World comparison all all great ways to show why its better to vote for you.

speaks--- Most of the time I'll give at least 25 speaker points, timing, emphasis, putting emotions into your speech and showing how much you actually believe in your side will affect speaks. 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. Speaks don't affect how I judge the round, even if you are a better speaker but the other team's case is stronger, I WILL give them a low point win.

Voters in order---Kritiks, theories, criteria, impacts

poi---try to take 1-2 poi's per speech

RVI--- come on guys, if it's something along the lines of talking too fast(when you didn't tell them), time suck, etc, just use the time on strengthening your case of refuting theirs, I'm not gonna be voting on that.

I am not a tabula rasa judge only to the points of facts, if you make a point with made up statistics or factually proven wrong information, I will intervene on the flow, dropping your speaks and disregarding that point while weighing the round. Outside of facts, any other things you say, like ex:nuking everyone would be good, as long as your opponents dont refute that point, i'll believe it.

don't worry about my own politics, view on LGBTQ+, or any of the controversial topics as long as you are addressing everything respectfully and not with intentions of disrespect or contempt.

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

My name is KaLeah Guptill. I competed in debate competitions my entire high school career. I competed in PF, LD, CX, EXTEMP, and Poetry/Prose. I judged in several events in several separate competitions.

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY

All things said in the round need to be clear! You must clearly articulate while speaking whatever it is that you want me to understand, vote on and so forth. I make this stipulation in order to place the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments that are presented.

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Aside from PF and Parli, all other debate events I'm new to and don't really know how it works so please simplify as best you can.

All debates should be held with clarity and simplicity for the judge. Overall, I vote for whoever simplifies the round best and makes sure that the judge can understand what's going on.

WEIGH! If you don't weigh by the time it's final focus, I will most likely vote for the other team, unless the round is really messy. IMPACTS ARE INEVITABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT COMES OUT OF A ROUND !! Make sure your impacts are terminated too!

CLASH! If there is no clashing, that ruins the whole point of debate. Directly clash with each other's arguments and persuade me that one's argument is better than the other. If both sides have evidence that clashes, solve it through warrants.

Those two things are what you should keep in mind to receive my vote.

I like to flow my rounds, so yes, I'm a flow judge and I don't like spreading because it just feels like rather than letting your judge understand what your contentions are, you're just dumping information onto me that I won't even remember. If you start spreading or don’t have structure then I’m going to stop flowing.

I know what theory/k's are but don't use them unless it's absolutely necessary because it seems like something you're resorting to last minute if you don't know how to effectively clash with your opp's arguments. However controversial arguments where your opponents are being rash are when I will probably vote off k's

Please be respectful to each other, and remember that debate can also be taken as something fun (and slightly humorous)

I can disclose if it is preferred after the round :)

add me on email chains: lennish77@gmail.com

Congress

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.

LD 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.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

CX

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments.

NFA-LD

I view NFA-LD as one-person policy. Please refer to CX comments just above.

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.

Please do not spread and speak clearly. During cross fire, please ensure you are sticking to the topic and/or the argument brought up. Provide evidence. Be respectful to your opponents

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, then I will not flow it and I will not vote on it. I will indicate that I cannot follow what is being said by holding up my pen.

Whether or not a written case has been shared with me does not change this and does not make up for your lack of speaking ability. I will not use shared cases as a reference to improve my flow. 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. As such, I will only view cases shared with me when there is debate around the veracity of the evidence, and I will only look at the evidence in question. Finally, case sharing should only happen with the agreement of both parties in the round, and I will not view cases only shared by one party.

Courtesy, to both your opponents and your partner, is 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. At the same time, I understand that there is a competitive benefit to cutting people off during cross examination, especially if their answer is being dragged out. As such, I find it courteous to respond to cross examination questions as succinctly as possible, and I will not penalize people who cut off excessively long answers. I trust that debaters can use their best judgement to determine when it is appropriate to cut people off. I have a similar opinion on points of information.

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 the differences between the affirmation and the negation are the best way to persuade me. I do not find a deluge of evidence alone to be convincing, it has to be discussed by the debater in the context of the round for it to be convincing. Ideally, the reason for my decision one way or the other would be paraphrased from the winning debater.

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. Only arguments discussed in final speeches will be voted on; make sure to extend all of your arguments, not just the one that tips the scales in your favor. New arguments in final speeches will not be flowed and will not be voted on, but continuation of previous arguments are fair game.

Finally, a note on Theory, Topicality, and Kritiks. First, I only consider the harms to be a priori issues if they apply to debate as an activity. If the harms apply to something else in the real world, I consider them in context to the benefits provided by the stance they are levied against because I view them as the cost of advocating for that stance, which could be worth it if the stance provides a greater benefit or prevents a greater harm. Secondly, for Kritiks, I should be given a better alternative to the language criticized because the default is that there is no other way to share that idea. If the idea communicates an actual harm, then I have to weigh that harm against the damage created through the use of the language, which is often a losing battle. This is easily circumvented by providing a better alternative to show the idea can still be communicated.

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. I am currently a sophomore in college, but I do not participate in college debate.

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 junior 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.

I am blank slate, tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.

I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.

Hi!

Quick reference (for parli):

Add logic and analysis to why your evidence matters and connects. Instead of just listing a million points, find strong ones that have good/strong clashes and are able to be upheld. A few powerful points that the opposite can't knock down > Lots of weak points. Give lots of impacts.

I look for clarity, have confidence in what you're saying, everyone is here to listen to you, make me believe what you are saying. Medium speed is good, fast is also ok, just make sure both me and the opponents can still understand you. Add emotion, don't stay monotone.

During rebuttle, try to reference specifically what your opponents have said. What are you attacking? What points are you clashing against? Why does your point weigh more? Have more magnitude? etc. Point out clashes, then tell me why your points matter more.

Extend arguments throughout speeches. Reconstruction and strengthening your sides points boosts speech. If points by opposite side are not refrenced/rebuttled by and dropped, points automatically go through, boosts opposite sides points.

Answering POI's, giving lots of POI's, showing you're engaged boosts strategy points, do NOT spam though.

Scores are 40% content, 40%style, 20%strategy.

For any questions, email: Emily.ym.hu@gmail.com

Hello! My name is Jehan and I just started my first year at UC Berkeley. I competed in high school parliamentary debate and world schools debate for four years, and I've just started my first year of college NPDA. I really love debate, and I hope that everyone has fun in round!!I am tech > truth, and I don't care that much about performance. If I need you to slow I will say so, as I am not too comfortable with flowing very fast spreading.

Case: I am a big fan of case debate and am the most comfortable evaluating it. I prefer specific/novel disadvantages over generic ones, but will evaluate them equally. Please remember that the perm is a test of competition and not an addition to your advocacy. I'll evaluate "cheater" counterplans unless given a reason not to by the affirmative via theory

Theory: I think theory arguments are an important part of debate. Despite that, I do have a high threshold for frivolous theory, especially when run against a clearly inexperienced team. When evaluating theory, I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

Kritiks: I find kritiks to be really interesting and am open hearing them. My personal lit base isn't the biggest, so please thoroughly explain your kritiks, especially on a framework and alt level.

Please collapse and weigh your arguments so it is easier for me to evaluate the round and to limit any potential judge intervention on my part. I will try to protect the flow in rebuttal speeches but feel free to POO arguments when necessary. Please do not abuse POOs.

Lastly, do not cheat or be bigoted or ill instantly drop your team and report you to tab.

I am a parent judge. I would prefer for the teams to speak at a moderate speed, and thoroughly explain their arguments. I have not judged many debates before.

Respect is very important attribute for me. I expect the teams to respect each other.

I keep tab on the flow & time on my own. I would like to see each team use the time appropriately.

I would prefer if the debaters spoke clearly at a reasonable speed rather than rushing.

Flay judge.

I debated PF for Centerville High School in Ohio for four years and coached the middle school team for three years. I recently graduated from Vanderbilt University.

I competed at a few national circuit tournaments, but most of my debating was done on the local circuit. I have judged all debate formats but have not competed in all of them. Most of this paradigm relates to PF but in terms of Policy, I am open to hearing every argument and will evaluate based on the flow.

Add me to the email chain at sung.jeon20@gmail.com. If you spread, send a speech doc.

In terms of a PF 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.

I am a parent judge. Please speak up so I can clearly hear you for virtual sessions.

Just don't speak too fast.

My background consists of doing PF debate for a year and LD debate for 3 years in high school. I am a traditionalist when it comes to LD debate, 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 graduating in December 2024 with my B.A. in Communication Studies and minor in Political Science.

I am an impact calculation judge. What this means is that, my primary focus is on understanding and evaluating the tangible benefits and consequences of the arguments presented. I encourage debaters to clearly articulate how their worldview would positively transform society. It’s essential to define the impacts of your arguments in specific terms—avoid vague assertions and provide concrete examples that illustrate the real-world implications of your perspective. Whenever possible, quantify your impacts using statistics, case studies, or historical examples to demonstrate measurable improvements, whether in health, safety, economic stability, or social cohesion.

I will not tolerate any form of discrimination—including racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, ageism, or religious intolerance—during the debate round.

Have fun and enjoy the debate! ☺️

Hello future debaters! I look forward to judging your rounds, but please keep in mind of these few things.

TLDR: I am good for highly technical, mechanistic debates where extensive clash and line-by-line happens. Am less good for grandstanding, ballot stories based on edgy rhetoric, or lay debates.

kritiksarecheating@gmail.com

TOC 2x, 6 bids.

Friends who align with my views on debate: Sterling Utovac, Laura Huang, Niranjan Deshpande, Vaish Sivamani, William Trinh

Former coaches: Adam Tomasi, Brett Cryan, Patrick Fox, Vik Maan, Aidan Etkin, Bryce Sheffield

I. Basics

- None of us had to be here at 8 am on a weekend. I will give my full attention to whatever you have to say, whether that's the death K, Baudrillard, or the rider DA. Likewise, I expect to you to treat your opponent with respect.

"That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster" - pat

- I flow on my laptop, but will not have other tabs open.

- ADDENDUM: LD debate should stay LD debate. I like policy-style arguments, but spamming 8 off in the 1NC and 30 cards in the 2NR creates fundamental structural problems in this activity due to the nature of the timeskew and the 2AR's capacity to respond to new arguments. Moreover, these strategies tend to be deeply underdeveloped and require significant reconstruction post-2AR on behalf of judges that I am unwilling to do. Depth > breadth.

II. Ground rules

Nothing you do or say will change these factors in my decision calculus.

A. Debate is a game that requires 1 winner and 1 loser.

B. Do not misgender people. This is non-negotiable.

C. Do not be racist, sexist, etc.

D. Ad homs will not earn you the ballot. They will earn you 25 speaks. "entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know" - pat.

E. The affirmative speaks first and last and thus has the burden of positive proof. The negative speaks second and thus has the burden of rejoining the aff.

F. Speech times. 6-7-4-6-3. These do not change.

G. If an accusation of clipping or an ev ethics violation are alleged and the round is explicitly staked, I will stop the debate and decide internally whether the accusations are true or false. The winner gets a W29, the loser an L20. Clipping tags isn't a thing.

III. Topic Familiarity

I no longer actively cut a lot of cards or do extensive research, but I do help out some friends that are still "in the game" occasionally, so expect me to have some level of LD topic knowledge.

IV. Thoughts on specific arguments

A. Kritik/K affs

I was involved in a substantial portion of these debates in high school. I am better for K debaters that are highly technical. I am worse for K debaters that rely on fanciful rhetoric, grandstanding, and edgy performances to win.

Kritiks make no sense when debated as traditional opportunity costs to the plan. By definition, "K links" are nonunique as a matter of course, and rely on an alternative model of debate or ideological framework to generate an opportunity cost to the affirmative. This means that evaluating the K through the lens of a disad/counterplan is incoherent.

"Negative advocacies are opportunity costs to the plan. For this reason, I find it very hard to conceptualize kritik alts as competitive under traditional opportunity cost." - Andrew Park

People should impact turn Ks more. Every K probably thinks heg and cap are bad (or they probably don't solve the link). Although the LD 1AR is too short to read some of the better heg cards, impact turns as a component of offense against Ks other than cap should definitely become a more substantive part of the meta.

I lean neg on T-framework. I am persuaded by the idea that debates over a topical plan are good, but can be convinced to vote the other way. Impact turning framework is likely more convincing than a counterinterpretation that purports to solve the negative's limits offense. Recently, though, Agastya Sridharan has convinced me that t-framework is probably always an uphill battle for the affirmative team.

B. Disads

I largely went for these negating. 2NRs on DA/case should be short on internal link explanation/overviews, heavy on turns-case analysis. Two sentences is a sufficiency. You should also weigh. Weighing is good and important. Explain why your offense comes before theirs.

Meta-weighing is also good and criminally underutilized - a lot of debaters just assert that timeframe comes before magnitude, or vice versa, without a warrant. "Intervening actors check" is not an argument.

Evidence quality matters, but sometimes analytics are better than evidence. Card quality in LD is atrocious. Sometimes, instead of reading your russia D from 2012, you'd just be better off making analytic arguments about how Ukraine proves Russia's washed. It takes less time too.

Uniqueness controls the direction of the link. If there is a 50% chance that Ukraine aid passes in the world of the plan, but a 0% chance that it passes in the world of the DA, I vote aff.

This should also highlight the importance of cutting updates to internal link ev and uniqueness. I will be displeased if I have to judge the farm bill DA with uniqueness from 2020. This will be reflected in your speaks.

C. Counterplans

Dense counterplan competition throwdowns were the debates I was least involved in and, by extension, the debates I am the least comfortable with judging. That said, I should be relatively okay for these rounds.

Debaters should think a lot more about the quality of evidence for a lot of process CPs. The authors of a lot of these articles are writing in the context of legal hypotheticals and often hasten to explain that anybody who tried these things in the real world would be patently insane. Letting the solicitor general, courts, or whatever make decisions about how the military works or whether UBI should be implemented would probably collapse the entire US government and it's legal, institutional, and historical legitimacy. Aff teams should say these things more.

Function > text. I'm not sure why changing "ought" to "should" means that the counterplan competes. This change in wording probably doesn't affect whether or not the counterplan could be implemented in the world of the aff. I think the most persuasive argument for textual competition is that it's most consistent with the legal process, but this seems to be fallacious. While legal interpretation certainly places an emphasis on semantics, it is generally recognized that the functional effect of the law should supersede quibbles over it's wording.

Likewise, I'm not persuaded by textual nonintrinsicness as a check on fully intrinsic permutations. Functional competition makes a lot more sense to me in a purely logical sense - if the counterplan cannot occur in the world of the aff, it likely competes.

Advantage counterplans are good, but debaters should write real planks. "Substantially increase aid to the Middle East" is not a real plank. Where? Who? How? It makes no sense to me that process counterplan debaters are generally forced to delve into the minutia of the mechanics by which their arguments function, but advantage counterplans are written incredibly vaguely.

D. Topicality

Don't have much to say here. Definitions are good. You should counterdefine words in the topic as the basis of an argument for why your interpretation of the topic is predictable and do a lot of comparative analysis when giving a 2NR on limits/precision.

I have little patience for LDers that treat T like frivolous theory. RVIs fundamentally do not make sense as a win condition on T: the logical extent of "you can win for being topical" is "not putting T in the 1NC doc means an aff autowin". Silliness.

E. Phil

This is the type of debate in which I am the least experienced. I'll still vote on these arguments, but I had relatively little contact with them as a debater. However, I am studying philosophy in college, so I'll hopefully have some idea about what you're talking about. Better for fully carded kant, skep, etc (in the Texas DK style) and less good for cheapshots like hidden indexicals, etc.

ADDENDUM: as a result of being friends with one of the most phil-focused debaters in this activity, I am much better for Kant and other philosophical strategies then I once was.

F. Theory

I will vote on these arguments, but I don't want to nor do I like to. Likely not an incredible judge for most nonresolutional theory.

ADDENDUM: If you respond to conditionality with the following statement: "get a job" it will not be a viable 2AR. If the 2AR is then conditionality, I will submit my ballot halfway through, close my laptop, and go to sleep. No exceptions.

G. Lay Debate

I do not, paradigmatically, know how to evaluate a style of debate where arguments are not made on a technical basis, and concessions are not automatically true. If I somehow end up judging your lay debate, I'll probably just vibecheck.

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!

Hello everyone!

My judging philosophy is simple; come up with a good structure, logical arguments, short summary speech and I shall consider you.

Debating is, according to me, more of what you present and less of what you know. I do not prefer long extensive arguments. Just come on the stage, give me handful strong arguments, do impact assessment of your points, make a few rebuttals and you are good to go.

Refer to these specific points-

1. Topic knowledge- You need not be scared from an unknown topic, I won’t judge your past knowledge on the topic, and rather I will give weightage to how you interpret it in the round and explain it initially. But, at the same, you may get some brownie points if you insert a fact and impress me!

2. Jargons & Speed- Do not go too fast in order to keep forth all your points and disturb your flow. Either select a sensible number of points or shorten all of them in order to present them wisely. If I am unable to match the speed, you have the chances to lose.

3. Rebuttals- I would love to hear logical rebuttals from you, but even the wacky ones won’t harm. Make sure you tell me where you are on the flow, and I’ll really like numbering your responses to things, it makes flowing easier for everyone.

4. Summary- A good summary is what I’ll appreciate. Just be very specific in it; you can also add a couple of new points in it but prefer reiterating the previous ones.

I am not going to judge you on each and every word you speak but make sure, most of them make sense. Be honest, don’t pretend on the know-how and do well.

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have before the round starts.

All the best!

I’ll prefer good speaks, not speakers!

My email is brianylee2003@yahoo.com. I am a parent judge. I have no prior debate experience, but my child has competed in PF for the past year. You should assume that I am knowledgeable about the topic if it is PF.

Evidence: I am not tech > truth, so if you want to argue the sky is green, I won't buy it. But I am open to reasonable interpretations of evidence (e.g., sky is purple, pink, orange, blue, a mixture of hues, etc.), particularly if your opponent fails to contest your interpretation.

Please be honest about your evidence. Your credibility matters A LOT. If your opponent points out a weakness in your evidence, you can try to dodge it by diversion, etc., but don't outright lie about it. If you're caught in an outright lie, you WILL lose your round.

Moreover, I want to reward the team that has done its research and can back up their contentions with solid evidence. That's why it is not uncommon for me, especially during elimination rounds, to request to examine cards that I think are crucial to how I might decide the debate.

Spreading/Speaker Score: Don't speak at a supersonic speed. My upper limit for comprehension is about 200 words per minute. So if your speech exceeds 800 words in a 4-minute speech, consider shortening it. Competitive debate may be the only activity where confusing your opponent through mumbling is allowed. I accept it as the reality, but I don't want to reward it. Spread at your own risk.

Beyond your mastery of language and confident articulation, I'm also looking for the ability to explain complex ideas simply and logically. Clarity is crucial in getting a high speaker score from me. Be careful about tossing around jargons. While I may understand it, excessive use of jargons in lieu of plain speaking may lower your speaker score.

During cross, I want to see polite, but assertive examination. Being passive may lower your speaker score.

Constructive: During this phase, I'm looking for debaters to (a) describe a problem, (b) explain to me precisely how the resolution you're advocating for will help solve the problem, and (c) tell me the impacts.

Too often I see debaters unable (or perhaps unwilling) to describe the problem beyond vague, general terms. For example, if you want to argue Chinese hegemony, tell me what specific behavior of China you want to stop or counter. Simply throwing around fancy labels like "hegemony" or "multi-polarity" won't do it for me.

The same goes for (b). To convince why your proposal will work, you need to cite either a credible expert explaining how it will work, or a historical example showing how it has worked, or at least logical reasoning and common sense why it will help. If, after four minutes, I struggle to connect the dots, it would be challenging for me to lean in your favor.

When it comes to impacts, I don't always go with the biggest one. I measure magnitude of an impact along with likelihood as well as timeframe. More importantly, if you don't do (a) and (b) well, I can't give you (c). In other words, accessing (c) is a direct function of doing (a) and (b) well.

Cross-examination: I know some judges don't pay too much attention to this. I REALLY do. To me cross is the essence of debate . During cross, I am looking for you to probe the weaknesses of your opponent's contentions to set up your rebuttals and to defend your own positions. I expect lively exchanges involving vigorous attacks and robust defenses. I will also look to see which team can establish perceptual dominance. Your performance in cross is often a key factor in how I decide speaker scores and possibly the round.

Rebuttal, Summary, and Final Focus. Rebuttal is straightforward, so I won't elaborate. For summary and final focus, I'm looking for debaters who can bring CLARITY (yes, that word again). That often means collapsing if you have three or more contentions and telling me how the contentions interact with each other. Tell me what I need to focus on, why your contention wins, and why your impacts outweigh. Clarity is the key to earning my vote.

Good luck!

Bellarmine '24. Stanford '28.

Add me to the email chain: rohanlingam2015@gmail.com

I have a deep level of respect for the preparation that goes into debate tournaments. I will do my best to reciprocate that dedication with a firm commitment to judging rounds strictly on technical execution, not my personal opinions. I'm not a blank slate, so always err on the side of explanation, story-telling, and persuasion. Be scrappy. Go for the path of least resistance. Don't shy away from clash. Given that, I’ll list several of my ideological dispositions below to be as transparent as possible — each of which can be reversed by out-debating the other team. My one unshakeable belief is that I will not vote on ad homs, strategies that rely on events that occured outside the round, and evidence ethics challenges.*

I don’t want a card doc. I’ve found it increasingly problematic that teams treat these docs as a third rebuttal. I will never reorganize a debate by reading evidence myself. Evidence is for you to explain and impact out.

K Affs: I’m very good for T-USFG against affirmatives that do not defend a hypothetical enactment of the resolution. Fairness is the best impact. I’m also very persuaded by defensive negative arguments that subsume a majority of affirmative offense, including switch-side debate and topical versions of the aff.

T: Interpretations couched in the language of predictable limits are best. Spend more time on internal link comparison than on high-level impact comparison at the top of your final rebuttals. I would prefer to not evaluate contrived interpretations that have questionable caselists. Especially for the negative, T debating is about painting a story of what worlds of debate would look like under each model using concrete examples. I’m not persuaded by a 2NC that rants about possible fringe affirmatives; explain why being able to read these affirmatives would make it impossible to debate.

CP: Infinite conditionality is good. Default is judge kicking the CP. Neg-leaning on most theoretical objections, but aff-leaning on international, private actor, and multi-actor fiat. Most affirmative objections are better communicated in the language of competition. I think affirmative competition interpretations are best grounded in defenses of specification as 'functions' of the plan. Generally not a fan of generic process CPs. Perms should be paired with a solvency deficit to flip offense-defense framing affirmative (obviously barring PDCP). Problems with CP planks not having advocates are better expressed through deficits rather than theory.

DA: I wish every 2NR in debate was disad/case. I find most overly simplistic, hyperbolic impact calc unhelpful in evaluating debates. The link is usually more important than uniqueness to me. Spin matters far more to me than evidence. I’m a sucker for rebuttals that go through each portion of the DA and explain numbered framing issues for how I should evaluate that specific portion.

Case: I am happy to vote negative on presumption provided burdens are explained and won.

K: I’m very good for 'extinction outweighs' against Ks that fail to moot the affirmative. I'm best for FW models that entirely exclude the case or the K. Neg teams should probably go for FW in front of me. I will always start evaluating these debates with FW. I will decide in favor of one side’s interpretation, not arbitrarily manufacture a middle ground.

Lay: I will never penalize (and will, in fact, be enthused by) a team who adapts to the slowest judge on their panel. Accordingly, I will excitedly adjudicate a debate that deals with stock issues and deep logistical case presses.

*There are only two scenarios where I will consider these arguments. First, if Team A has read a miscut card in an earlier debate, Team B has made substantial good-faith efforts to reach out to them about it (which includes multiple emails), and Team A continues to read the same miscut card, I’m very willing to vote for Team B. Second, if a team has disclosed an affirmative as “new” despite reading cards from earlier rounds, that is the textbook definition of cheating. You deserve to lose.

hey competitors!
I am a parent judge with some experience judging a debate round.
please keep in mind the following:
1. please please do NOT spread or rush thru your evidence.
2. explain what you're saying clearly. pretend as though I have no topic knowledge whatsoever. do this well and I'm more likely to vote for your side.
3. please refrain from complex philosophical arguments, they're a little hard to understand.
4. be respectful to your opponent. Any xenophobic/misogynist etc comments will tank speaks and will probably lose you the round too, so just no.
LASTLY HAVE FUN :) debate is an educational experience - the ballot isn't the end of the world. if I vote for u, keep it up! if I vote against you, improve from ur mistakes and keep going!!!

CASE DEBATE- Case debates should end with two conflicting blocks of impact calculous that explain how each side is acquiring the ballot through their win conditions. I find these to be most compelling through the lenses of Time Frame, Probability and Magnitude. The teams that better access these forms of impact weighing will typically win my ballot.

THEORY - 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.

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.

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.

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!

tech judge, love and have read all types of arguments.

run whatever you want, this is your round, i'm down to evaluate anything (case, k's, theory, tricks, etc).

perhaps this is a hot take, i love friv theory. read it, it's funny!

speaks-- winner (29.5) & loser (28)

Hey everyone!

my name is vedant and I’m a junior at Archbishop Mitty High School and I do PF, extemp, and impromptu.

I’m looking for persuasive speaking and solid delivery; make sure to signpost your arguments well so I won’t get confused; be sure to weigh in your speeches, probability, magnitude all that stuff.

I would consider myself pretty lay, so do not go very fast. Also please keep cross somewhat civil, no shouting or making rude gestures when another person is talking.

Ks are a no no. As well as all the techy things like topicality and theory. Would not recommend running them if you are trying to win.

I am a lay judge with some experience judging, I vote on good logic and reasoning, based on which side can convince me more that they are right.

Hi! I'm Alex Martin, a former La Reina High School LD debater based in Denver, CO. I'm currently in my junior year of University.

I competed for 5 years and attended local and national tournaments. I also did some college debate in my freshman year of college.

I'm experienced in flowing both slow and fast rounds. Progressive debate is okay as long as both competitors are comfortable with fast speeches and are willing to share cases.

I prefer evidence/case sharing to occur in the NSDA campus file share but email is okay too as long as you ask. My email is Alex.Martin@du.edu

Please be respectful. Bigoted behavior will not be tolerated. I'm pretty fair with speaker points as long as you put in your best effort.

Feel free to ask about more specifics during the round.

Tournaments: I usually reserve my weekends for debate related gigs/activities. If you are looking for hires, definitely consider me.

Prior experience:

Debated as a 2A for James Logan High School for 4 years. Went almost exclusively for K’s on the aff and the neg. Currently debating as a 2A for the University of California. I exclusively go for policy arguments now.

Judging:

emiliomenotti@berkeley.edu

Jameslogandebatedocs@gmail.com

A majority of my debates have been one off/K Affs so do with that what you will. Im a sucker for a good Security/Cap/Settler Colonialism Kritik. However, this does not mean I wont vote for a policy argument. I love debate and do not have a predisposition towards particular styles. At the end of the day my rfd is a referendum on who debated better. That being said, do not try and over-correct for me. I think debate is a space for you to pursue whatever you want (as long as it’s not overtly violent like racism/sexism/discrimination good).

Don’t bomb through analytics its annoying to flow and you will lose speaks. The less you act like a jerk the better. Theres a time and place for everything.

Rebuttals are often the most frustrating part of debate. This is when people have to get off the blocks and start thinking big picture. I like debaters who write their ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR. More judge instruction will not only get you better speaker points but dramatically increase your chances of winning. Im more than likely not going to vote on ticky tacky arguments, but who has a better big picture analysis for why they’ve won the debate and can flush out the benefits to granting them a ballot. In close debates, impact calc goes a long way. I will read evidence at the end of the round, but that is not an excuse for lazy debating.

extra .1 speaks for making fun of a current cal debater

Flow judge-will yell clear if needed

How I layer the win
Theory

K

case/Da/CP

Try Me

IMPLICATE

I love jokes the funnier the speech the higher the speaks.

Tech>Truth

Tricks are fun, run if you can

NBA References will give you max or near max speaks

add me to chain nachiketmittal26@mittymonarch.com

Hi my name is Harinadh. I’m a flay judge and I’ve been judging public forum debate for three years. I’m pretty comfortable with speed but if I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your argument. Please warrant out all your responses in rebuttal and number them if possible. I don’t evaluate crossfire so if there is anything important you want me to consider, bring it up in one of your speeches. Make sure to summarize the round in your summary speech. I will be looking for weighing throughout your speeches. Don’t make new rebuttals in summary or final, just clearly explain to me why I should be voting for you. Overall, be respectful and have fun!

RHETORIC DEBATE TOURNAMENT ADDENDUM

do not be late to round start. do not be stupid prep hawks. any violation of these and "any sort of homophobia/racism/etc = lowest possible speaks+L."points off your grade.

"1. Be respectful and kind towards each other
2. Do what you learned from all your time in Rhetoric" - Samarjit Deshmukh

normal paradigm:

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 ~5 years: I did LD in MS 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:

I will be judging at primarily parent-judged or lay tournaments – as such, I've written my paradigm to match that:

Generally, be a good speaker-- be clear, etc. I will time you and will stop flowing when time ends. In any sort of cross-examination, crossfire, POI, etc-- don't be a jerk!

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 high speaks from me. CX matters here too!

Follow general etiquette please. Any sort of homophobia/racism/etc = lowest possible speaks+L. As tabroom reminds me right above where I write this paradigm, "in other words, be mature educators, and good people."

General tips:

• I take 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:

I'm heavily inspired by my captains. So I'll steal from them.
"please be respectful and maintain proper etiquette throughout the round. be polite to your opponents and your partner, and remain professional at all times.

dropping a single ticky-tacky argument in the 1ar will not lose you the round. conversely, failing to respond to fundamental negative premises that underlie their arguments will. the same is also true for the affirmative. the portions of your speech that are spent on big picture framing - resolving and explaining why winning certain arguments are reasons to vote for you - will influence my decision far more than the technical back and forth within those arguments themselves.

in a similar vein, do not go for arguments simply because they were 'undercovered' by the other team. collapsing on arguments that are compelling because they are grounded in logic, evidence, and truth will give you the best chance of winning any round. responding and actively seeking clash rather than avoiding it will also be great for your grade." - Derek Qian

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!

Archbishop Mitty ‘25

[Add me to the email chain]: parkandrew1106@gmail.com

I have been debating for 4 years in mostly LD, Policy, Parli, and Congress, as well as participated in speech at Archbishop Mitty High School.

I also do LD on the national circuit and broke at most tournaments (UKTOC).

Notes

Being racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. is an instant L20. If you are feel uncomfortable or unsafe in round, please do not hesitate to email me.

Paradigm

Tech>Truth

Feel free to go ahead if you’re comfortable running Ks, Theory, or Policy debate. But I would rather you not read circuit debate positions if you’re uncomfortable with them.

Tell me which arguments are the most important in the round via weighing between worlds and scenario comparison.

I also believe that clash is extremely underrated and should be utilized in debate rounds. Simply skirting all of your opponent's arguments and giving me a 3-minute oratory might sound good, but if it doesn't engage with the substance in the round, it'll probably do more harm than good.

Ranks:

1 - Policy

2 - Theory, Kritiks

3 - Tricks

4 - K v K, K Affs

about me

ethan (any pronouns). debating with mvla in west coast parli and toc circuit ld. partnered with: yuika sun, caleb lin,sandy xu, preston bhat, caroline martin, catherine wong, sophia zhang, keira chatwin, abhinav kasturi, taylor luna, nevin pai, calista woo, grace chang, sumanth mahaligam, sally tei, and abby zhou. my views on debate have been shaped by all of those partners, though i probably don’t agree with them on everything.

tl;dr

tech > truth. i like explicit extensions and good weighing. i don't reject arguments as long as they're warranted. if i think you're being problematic, i'll vote on the flow but report you to tab + your coach. also will vote on reps bad or you link you lose if justified. this is a parli paradigm, but can apply to any event.

general

• all arguments need a claim, warrant, and implication
• nothing is sticky and i dislike shadow extensions
• i can hang with any speed, but don't spread out your opponents
• tag teaming is fine but i only flow speaker unless given reasons otherwise
• grace time is fake i stop flowing after time

policy debates

• trichot is fake. "should = a policy round" is not a fw argument
• terminalize impacts. just saying "econ goes down" is not enough
• fine with intrinsic perms but open to arguments against
• default to no judge kick (i'm lazy) but can if told to
• pass me relevant texts at some point

t/theory

• default to competing interpretations
• no default for dta v dtd. without an implication, it's an incomplete arg
• weigh standards & voters
• will vote on the rvi but it needs to be weighed against the interp
• will vote on nebel but don't misrepresent semantics (i know linguistics)
• will vote on condo bad but i think condo's good
• will vote on misc cp theory but dta probably solves
• i went for friv a lot. i'll vote on basically anything

kritiks

• familiar with queer theory, cap, lacan, and some pomo
• know some setcol and empire
• do weighing and layering. extinction ows is probably true
• will vote on disclosure (rotb + alt) for k-affs
• will vote on k-fw/policy-fw
• will vote on t-fw

misc tech

• i know how kant and util work
• i don't understand phil justifications
• will vote on phil but need thorough explanations
• will vote on tricks but need warrants
• will vote on performance but need judge instruction
• will vote on presumption/permissibility triggers but need warrants

misc

• poi/cx answers are binding
• i protect but call the poo. incorrect poo answers will not be punished
• default to allowing new weighing
• 2ar gets golden turns on new args + shadow extensions
• i check back against golden turns by ensuring sufficient warranting
• the 2ar is broken if you can weigh. the block is broken if you collapse
• i give speaks based on strategy

everything in this paradigm is a soft default and can be changed if the right arguments are made in round.

---

rants (skip if u want)

lay vs. tech

everything in debate is just an argument. i think t-fw and substance crowd-out bad are both true in formats where high-quality research is intrinsic to the activity, but i don't think parli is one of those events. ev ethics in parli is garbage, topics are recycled every tournament, and 20 minutes is not enough to conclusively understand what is blatant misinformation and what is legitimate.

i think parli should be a space to learn how to think and construct arguments critically. i think new arguments like friv theory, cool ks, fun spec affs, and creative counterplans all do that. i think if people stopped being so scared of certain arguments and just tried their best to engage, they'd stop hating different style of debate so much. that also means debaters should be accessible.

warrants in parli

anything that can be used to justify a claim is a warrant. "this person says it's true" is not a very good warrant, but is sufficient for me to evaluate the claim. better warrants would be empirical analysis, the reports of a study, or actual explanations of why a claim is true. if you do not have a warrant, i cannot evaluate the claim. some parli tournaments are messing with evidence rules. even if that continues, i still need warrants in one form or another.

style in debate

i think it's really funny how different debate formats and different regions have such vastly different styles. i don't think the west coast parli style is very rhetorically appealing to people outside of the area and format, but it works in front of lay audiences within the space. my personal debate style (rhetorically) more closely resembles toc ld than anything else. i'm probably subconsciously biased in favor of styles that are in that realm. i think it's very inefficient and kind of confusing how people in parli say "first is the uniqueness. point 1 is __. subpoint a is ___." i don't factor these things into my decision, but i think it's important to analyze why we've adopted certain styles and instead of conforming to what everyone else is doing, try crafting your own, more unique and efficient style.

---

final note

if you're a novice and none of this paradigm makes sense to you, that's ok! i make it this detailed because i don't want to underestimate any debaters. ask questions if you have them or just try your best in round. i'll give in-depth feedback and disclose if allowed. good luck!

I'm a sixth-year debater and generally flay. I've only been debating in West Coast spaces for TOC. 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.
• 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. You will definitely have to convince me why I should be voting for your progressive arg vs. the res at hand.

That being said, I am a passionate proponent of anti-disclosure theory! 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. Try to define all interps and responsibilities. have fun with it!

Novice: Just don't run theory/Ks

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.

hey i'm sumya! (they/them)

woodlands '25

please put me on the chain! have an email chain (strongly preferred)/speechdrop/file share if it's online-

woodlandssp@gmail.com

tldr; read whatever you want, this is your round that you prepared for and it is my job to meet you where you are. i am a firm believer in trying to stay as tab as possible, but i would be a fool to say my experiences don't shape my thinking, and consequently how i view rounds. i have a sensory processing disorder and chronic carpal tunnel so flowing is hard sometimes. to make sure that doesn't impact the outcome of your debate, slow down on analytics, send analytics in the doc, if there's a super blippy part of the debate make sure you give me an overview of why you're winning it, and don't make sudden loud sounds (i lowk get really loud when i'm giving speeches which is fine, but like some people will just yell "NEXT OFF"). debate is a game with significant educational benefits, but as a judge my role is to be an educator thus my number one priority is ensuring the safety and wellbeing of everyone in the room. do functionally whatever you want, just don't be discriminatory (ie. racist/sexist/queerphobic/ableist etc. etc.)

IF I AM JUDING YOU IN NOVICE LD

- a lot of these rounds come down to simple things such as weighing and extending so please please please do that

- weighing requires an explanation for why you are winning magnitude/time frame/probability/etc.

- EXTEND EXTEND EXTEND

- crystalize the round!!! that can look like big picture analyses, weighing, voters, etc.

- you can (and should) skip everything else in here minus the speaks section and potentially the general section

K- 1

K Aff- 1

Phil- 3

Theory- 3

T- 2

Tricks- 4

Trad/Lay- 1

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

general:

- tech>truth

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

- please be clear when you talk; if you can't talk clear and fast, talk clear

- i really don't care what you read as long as it's not discriminatory

- i have a sensory processing disorder which means i kinda suck at flowing. super fast, blippy debates are not things you want me in the back of. obviously i try my hardest to keep up but like... at a certain point it's out of my hands. this is the sole reason theory is at a 3. a lot of the times it's super fast analytics that aren't in the doc. i am not opposed in any way to theory debates, i just don't want yall doing a bunch of work and then me not being able to evaluate it properly bc i can't flow. WAYS TO MINIMIZE THIS- include as much as you can in the doc, delineate when switching offs/moving to the next card, slow down on analytics, and in theory debates crystalize and explain at the bottom of the 2n/a why you're winning the shell.

- 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 else involved

- read literally anything you want, even if i'm unfamiliar with it, you should be able to make me understand it by the end of the 2n/a

- PLEASE engage with the framing debate. if you don't idk how i'm supposed to vote :(

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

- yes i'll eval friv args but pls make them funny

- 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

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

speaks:

- i def lean on the higher side of speaks, but i don't really have a system figured out
- i tend to err on giving speaks based off of strategy-- different impediments can make "talking pretty" harder and is probs unfair

here are some ways to increase speaks:

- make the round fun

- give me a song rec that i'll listen to during prep and boost your speaks if i like it (for vibes, i was in the top 0.005% of conan gray listener this year)

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

here are some ways to lower speaks:

- my#1 pet peeve is debate bros who are extremely aggressive and assertive, especially over gender minorities- don't let that be you (no really i'm serious, i wrote a whole article about it)

- being rude in round.

- making the round very messy and hard to eval.

- harassing your opponent during cx/being a hobbledehoy

- making me want to go home and turn my brain off

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

Specific things

K's:i LOVE ks. i unironically spend a lot of time thinking and reading abt the lit bases independently of debate. this means i am a good judge for these debates and def can understand any super nuanced interactions, whether that's between different lit bases, phil, cross applications, etc. (although you should explain it well enough in round anyways)

K Aff: same as above! i don't care whether you're fully non-topical or you defend the resolution, just represent your lit well

Phil: i love love love phil, and i have read it extensively, however as much as i hate that this is true, i probs don't fully understand the way phil in debate functions, however i do imo more than the average debater's knowledge abt it

Theory: man i hate when people read random shells just to read a shell, but i lowk get the strat. hate the game not the players

T-FWK: i find the tva, ssd, and impact turns very convincing in these debates. affs need to be able to answer why they NEED to be read on the affirmative, and negs need an answer the inevitable impact turns the aff will make. just a psa- i always affirm on this side of the debate so i probs have a bias there, but i really try to see who's winning on the flow

Tricks: ok i am suuuper conflicted here. tricks are the one place where i feel like it's ok to set some ground rules here bc bffr you did not spend time developing these arguments. little one liners like eval are fine, i think i personally draw the line when it comes to nailbomb affs and paradoxes/the random stuff ppl pull and justify using truth testing

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

ALL EVENTS THAT AREN’T LD

i have competed in ld, cx, wsd, poetry, and helped teach pfers, so that's mostly what i'm basing my knowledge off of

Please introduce yourselves and state the topic before the round begins. Also state Road-map (OFF TIME) and tell me where you are going. It helps me understand your case better. As a rule I do not time road maps.

Please avoid snarky comments and approach the arguments with politeness and respect.

I understand your case more when there is voice modulation in your speech, reading as is from a screen makes it hard to follow and seems uninteresting. I love to see when you speak with passion and when it seems like you really mean what you are say.

Don't have to ask me if I am ready before beginning each section of the round.

Please manage the timers yourselves.

Hi! I'm Vidhi Patra, a high school LD and Parli debater. I also participate in a lot of speech events (extemp, impromptu, OI).

things I appreciate:

A. Current evidence along with an explanation of the argument in the debater's own words along with a crisp impact.

B. Good manners!

C. Turn on your camera if it is an online tournament. Sit straight or stand up straight and make eye contact with the camera as you would if you were in person.

D. Roadmap before your speech (except for the first and last speeches)

E. Don’t forget to weigh your final arguments against your opponents in the final speech.

I prefer evidence/case sharing to occur on an email chain. My email is mailtovidhipatra@gmail.com.

You can speak as quickly as you think I can understand you, but I won't tell you to slow down. Choose your speed wisely.

You can time yourself, but I am the official timekeeper. If your alarm goes off on your opponent, I find that unethical. If you argue with me, don't expect to win the round.

Feel free to ask about more specifics during the round.

Please be respectful. Bigoted behavior will not be tolerated. I'm pretty fair with speaker points as long as you put in your best effort.

- I can understand almost anything you run

- PLEASE weigh the round, it is so important for you to show why your arguments are more substantial than your opponents, and why they matter more.

- Do not be abusive in cross x, I'm okay with assertiveness but don't continually cut your opponents off and make it uncomfortable for everyone.

- Do not be sexist/racist/homophobic etc. If you are displaying any prejudice against the other team I will drop you immediately.

- I can flow fast speaking/spreading, but signpost and speak clearly. Do not spread if you are unable to be understandable.

- Don't drop arguments, if your opponents drop arguments I will know. However, I won't count it against them unless you bring it up.

- I will count bringing up evidence in final rebuttals against you only if your opponent brings up that you did. If it's in the last speech and your opponent won't be able to respond I'll count it against you myself.

- Have fun, and don't be too nervous. If you need to pause during your speech to recollect yourself, I won't hold it against you.

- add me to the email chain @sandyp427@icloud.com

email chain: reba.prabhakhar@gmail.com

theory and K's at your own risk

evidence is important but tech>truth

i dont flow cross

please WEIGH

My email is srabalais1@leomail.tamuc.edu

Competed in CX Debate as recent as last year at Kennedale High School. Just recently began judging to fulfill my passion for debate.

There are many paths to victory when it comes to CX, you decide which one you take. Debate in whatever style you feel most confident in, just make sure your arguments are clear and flowable.

I'm open to all arguments but I believe that stock issues should be answered for first before going into other territories.

I highly encourage clashing, just don't be a jerk.

I believe that it's important for a speaker to be knowledgeable on what they're reading and be able to explain what a card means in their own words, if you can't, you probably shouldn't be arguing it.

As far as speed goes, remember that quality > quantity. I won't penalize you for going too fast but I might ask you to slow down for better understanding.

Debates are won in rebuttals, this is where you'll create your path to victory and I will weigh out the round.

Feel free to ask me any questions!

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day (AFA , IPDA , NFA) ... currently I'm a consultant teaching at the university level (AFA/NFA)

• PLZ treat your opponent and judge the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate or toxicity in debate
• I prefer speechdrop, google docs or NSDA file share .. unless you're a debate coach or tournament director or prospective employer... you don't need my email
• tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
• I mainly judge College IE's and HS circuit PF and circuit LD - these are my absolute fav's
• Talking fast is ok, spreading is ok if its clear (if you sound like you have peanut butter on the top of your mouth while spreading then DON'T SPREAD - I will not flow)
• IF USING HISTORICAL EVIDENCE (whether debate or public speaking event) , you need to address the 5 C's of historical analysis ... if not then this is for you ---> L
• I view competitive debate as a game... but also as a trial by fire - who ever can win the game and stand the fire will DEF win the round
  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

PO's: 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

^^ To the PO's, if you don't establish your gaveling procedure almost immediately I will have no problem ranking you last - non negotiable

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 go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

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? Usually Tech, however it all depends on what you run, if you're going to say things that are absolutely not true (holocaust never happened... etc) STRIKE ME - because if I have to go Truth I will have no problem telling you you're wrong and will make an example out of you

I better see clash

IMO, Condo and anything Fiat should be left to LD/CX - but I will evaluate it I guess

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

I value good strategy and refined rhetoric, if you have this you'll most likely get my ballot

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

IMPACT CALCULUS is your best friend !!!

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:

send a doc

if you're going too fast I will say clear once - after that my pen will go down

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

If you sacrifice clarity/quality for speed/quantity then I am not the judge for you

If you're a trad debater ... I'm an ALRIGHT judge

I am THE judge you want for policy LD rounds & for K's

P/CP - cool - if they're very specific and interesting then I am def the judge for you

K - HECK YEA

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Friv Theory/Performance - PLZ noo, automatic strike !!!

^ if you run any of these in any round I judge you in, I will look for any and every way to vote against you

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX, but I am getting back into the groove.... best way to describe me when pertaining to policy is Game Theorist

Now in days no judge is really Tab - lucky you I'm all about Game Theory

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:

If any debate round is near impossible to judge (terrible evidence, round going in circles, no clash, toxic behavior, challenges... etc) 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 2024-2025 season!!

I am a parent judge, please speak at an understandable pace, and please articulate your words. Discourage Debate jargons. Don't be rude keep it professional, refrain from mocking and other criticizing movements. Present your evidence properly and expand on why it matters. Good luck!

A parent judge with six months of experience in judging.

I prefer well-laid-out contentions and point-by-point rebuttals. I generally flow and will take note of significant drops. Also, ensure that you are weighing impacts at the end of your speeches. Please be courteous to your opponent and clear in your presentation.

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 but there’s no real distinction; true arguments are easier to win. I need at minimum a warrant to vote on anything.

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/Stock Ks: 1

Topicality: 1

K: 2-3

Theory:2-3

K affs: 4

Phil: 5

Trix: . .

Policy

Topicality - I LOVE TOPICALITY. Have good evidence, do good comparison and you will have my heart - DON'T SPREAD THROUGH THE LBL

Impacts - weigh em

K

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

Topical K Affs: love em

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

FW

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

I debated in High School and College and am in my seventh year coaching.

I have experience in judging Policy, LD, Parli, PuFo, World Schools and Congress. My primary experience is in Policy.

Address for the email chain: chris.ryan@lmusd.org

Judging Preferences:

I am big on courteous debate. A national champion or top talent must to be able remain professional under all circumstances, whether debating other top talent or a heavy mismatch. I can and will drop arrogant, superior debaters for violations of decorum. No debater should leave a round and be discouraged because of how they were treated by their opponent(s). Similarly, partners that write speeches or handle all of the CX are not "partners". When will your partner learn if they are not given the chance to succeed or fail on their own merits?

Policy Specific:

I would like a well debated round. The resolution is for conflict between the Aff and the Neg. Speed should not be at the expense of logic and well crafted arguments. Barfing cards or precanned responses is not debate. I can understand speed I just don't think that it furthers our activity. Explain why your arguments are important and how they create a narrative to capture my ballot. I can be convinced to evaluate kritiks but please don't test my patience.

I typically am a policy making critic.

LD Specific:

I prefer classic LD that warrants deep philosophical thought about a topic. I'd prefer if it not devolve into single competitor policy debate, plans, counter-plans and kritiks.

TL;DR:Tech over truth; establish the comparative, do the link and impact weighing, Ks and theory fine, dont be a bad person.

Hey y’all, I’m Rohan (he/him) and I did varsity Parli for 5 years. Coach for Nueva and APDA competitor for UChicago.

Random musings:

I won't protect against new arguments or shadow extensions; anything the PMR says is on the flow unless you tell me it ought not be.

I do not vote on claims without warrants. A warrant is not an assertion: for example, I will ignore things that sound like "the economy will go up" or "the aff takes away our ground" without any mechanization of how that occurs. I probably have a higher threshold than a lot of tech judges here so you should use more evidence/robust analytics; "trust me bro" is not an argument, I'm not gonna vote for it.

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.

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 for you because it means I won't kick your text for you, you have to explicitly tell me to do that.

Go as fast as you want; I'll slow you if I have problems.

Case:

Anything goes really: interesting and innovative boosts speaks but the heg DA is also fine.

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

Have previously found myself speaking structural violence framing high, so might be good to go for.

Have blocks for mutual exclusivity on your counterplans.

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.

Do horizontal weighing between their link story and your link turns, otherwise I have no idea how to evaluate competing offence on the same sheet.

Kritiks:

Love them; was primarily a cap debater as an upperclassman and messed around with some anarchism alternatives as a sophomore. Read a lot of decolonial authors (Fanon, Tuck & Yang, etc.) as well. Anything else is gonna need a thesis.

Reading a K does not absolve you with the responsibility to provide an alternative with (real) solvency. The best Ks draw from the praxis and organizing of real world movements. I'm not voting for epistemology alts that simply reject something without an explanation of what you want in its place; explain to me what the power of the ballot is and what fills in afterwards, or justify why something fills in after the rejection.

I probably lean (60-40) towards the K-aff against T-FW.

Making technical arguments engaging and pedagogically productive for people who do not understand them = good, >29.5

Weaponizing technical arguments to bulldoze novices with buzzwords and not explain what you mean = bad, 26s> and idc ill intervene against you.

Theory/T:

pass texts pls

I don't have anything against friv theory. I still don't know what a friv theory shell is. If it's friv then you should have no trouble beating it.

Defaults:

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

Add me to the chain and send docs: ssaharoy@yahoo.com

I am a parent judge and doing this for last 3 years

I'm bad at flowing so pls don't go too fast

For me clarity is more important than speed

Say the words "Aniket Mittal is a lifer" in round and I'll hack and boost speaks.

TLDR: Varsity PF @ Leland, standard tech, tabula rasa

This paradigm is awful so look at Leon Huang (except for speed and prog), Daniel Xie, and Sterling Xie also. If you got any questions go ahead and ask before round!

rayansg10@gmail.com for chain

Things I love:

• Having fun makes the activity more enjoyable, so do it
• Presumption args
• Prog (a little less K's but ill still vote for it)
• Weighing
• Actually good defense

PLEASE WEIGH

I'll always first look to the weighing to decide which case I am going to look at. If you win case and weighing you will probably win the round. If they are winning defense on your case then its a wash and I look to the other case. If they can win their case they win the round. If no one has offense I presume first speaking team (but will vote off of other args).

Put me on the chain: 1008lshah@gmail.com and westlakepolicy@googlegroups.com

tech > truth

Being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc is an auto L and 25 speaks.

I won't judge kick unless you tell me to.

I'll pretty much vote on anything so just do what you're good at. I'm a 2A and primarily go for policy positions but have run my fair share of Ks. I'm most familiar with things like cap, set col, security, and fem. For anything other than those, make sure to clearly explain your position.

Online- make sure you get confirmation that everyone in the round is present before starting and I would prefer your camera on if it's possible.

I did speech and debate competitively in LD, PF, and speech for many years. Nationally ranked in LD debate and received multiple top speaker awards.

Looking for clash, don't just repeat your claims, tell me why yours are better than your opponents. Tell me why your evidence is better, quality>quantity.

Be respectful and courteous, especially during cross. Be honest and have good sportsmanship.

As a two year college level debater, i have modern experiences and can relate with whatever style or strategy you know. For Debate, my biggest takeaway is clash with opponents and that would win you my ballot even with decent on-case arguments. I'm open to Topicality, Kritiks and any other strategy you can employ. For speed, talk in a decent pace. If a non-debater walks in the room, can they relate with you? However, I can keep up with whatever speed. I just think that's a plus.

Foe I/Es, confidence, structure and performance is what i care about. Implement subtle humor where needed.

JUST DO YOUR THING!!!

Michael Shurance

Debate 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. I generally don't think theory operates A prior unless it's about specific abuse, but if you say it operates a prior, and they don't dispute it, then it operates a prior. If its not then its a normal off case position that arguments for different rules and standards that my vote would help promote. Multiple theories are not good. If theres abuse, run a theory, and if you want to enforce a interpretation, run a theory non a prior, if it seems prepped im more suspicious. Don't time skew on purpose. I don't believe you should generally "drop" theories, but you can.

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.

Aff K's

In order to run a K on the aff you need to prove that the resolution is so messed up; that you are ethically bond to not defend it, and that the fairness/education lost is outweighed by either your solvency, or by avoiding having to defend the resolution. It's a huge uphill battle, and ill likely vote neg on presumption.

Advocacies are not conditional in an ideal world, if you kick out off an advocacy Im much more skeptical on the aff as to why you needed to break procedural fairness in the first place, and may vote you down. Everytime you kick out of an advocacy you work against the K you ran, making it seem trivial or insincere. Its a slap in the face on people who actually have convictions about their kritiks. I generally 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 would have also been insincere which 1. hurts your solvency/ 2. destroys your movement. which turns your K into handwashing, and nothing more then a useless academic exercise.

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. I really like case debate, if you can seek out and find clash you'll be rewarded for it.

Speech Paradigm:

Be polite and persuasive/funny/engaging with your speech, as hard as it is, try and be happy/excited to be here, and excited to share your speech/worldview/story.

I will likely judge heavily based on performance.

I'm a parent judge, first timer here.

Say clearly and articulate your points well.

Please be polite, slow.

Be respectful.

And have fun!

I am a parent judge and have judged debate events for a year. I have recently started to judge speech events too.

Speech: Effectively communicate your position. Keep to the topic and please do not spread since the it is hard to follow. The use of evidence and logic to support your contentions is important. Please track your time as my attention is on the content.

Debate: I prefer debaters to present their arguments clearly and explain how it is superior. You should not jump from one point to another and then come back. Support the argument with support data and have the source and full citation available, if requested. I consider both the probability and the magnitude of the arguments.

In the end the person that effectively supports their initial position and also offers competent arguments against the opponents arguments will likely win.

heyyy! i'm zachary (he/him)

debate however you feel comfortable! ill flow all rounds but have experience with both flow and lay styles of debating. i believe it's the judge's duty to adapt to the style of the debaters. i think disclosing is good and paraphrasing is bad, but please don't run theory on novices. i'm all for debate being both an educational experience and something that's fun.

please feel free to ask me any questions before the round on specifics!

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third 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, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD, as long as your clear. I prefer traditional slow PF, Parli, local circuit LD, but both people want to spread and be technical, I guess it’s fine.

General: 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) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, 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). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. 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). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

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'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

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. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. 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, but I think I'm less inclined to than most, especially in PF. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap and neolib; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I think I’m more likely open to anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. 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 competing interps, 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 or reasonability 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 very 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 or if you're in a specific prog LD division. 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).

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

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 like it when your contentions clearly link to the topic (eg I’m not a fan of a 50 States CP paired with a DA without a topic specific link). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. 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). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

I am a lay judge. I am a parent judge.

I have judged ~10s of LD, PF debates and few speech formats.

I do take detailed notes and I am able to follow fast pace of delivery but not sure if that is enough to qualify me as a "flow judge". I will request debates to slow down if I am not able to follow along.

I need some time after the debate to cross check my notes tabulate results and come up with a decision, so I would not be able to provide any comments at the end of the debate. I will make all efforts to provide detailed written feedback when I turn in my ballots.

I make a good fait assumption that debaters have made all efforts to verify the reliability/credibility/validity of the sources they are citing. If a debater feels otherwise about their opponents sources, I would like to hear evidence.

I appreciate civic, respectful discourse.

Do not use a lot of debate jargon, the lay judge that I am would not probably not understand most of it.

What’s up! my name is Aarya Srinivasan and I’m a senior at Archbishop Mitty.

Add me to the email chain: aaryasrinivasan25@mittymonarch.com

I have done three years of varsity speech and debate, and I have competed in the events Policy, LD, Parli, Congress, IX, and Impromptu.

My judging paradigm is mostly just offense/defense, but if both sides want a slow round I will judge it lay.

Since my main event is policy, I am tech over truth, which means that I will believe anything you say in the round regardless of how true it is in the real world as long as it is argued well. Spreading is chill, but I dislike irrational link chains so make sure that there aren’t some crazy gaps in between your cards. If both sides do NOT agree on a fast round, RUN THEORY!

For my preferences, I enjoy listening to logical and complex arguments backed up by well researched evidence. Quality Cards are KEY, make sure that you do not mistag or misrepresent your evidence. Know the warrants to your cards, if you can’t explain WHY something is the case you’re prolly not gonna be very convincing. I will not judge intervene to disqualify bad evidence/lying, but I will likely drop your speaks.

Also, it’s no fun to watch a round where nobody clashes, so make sure that you call out specific arguments your opponents made and then respond to them. I also like to see debaters have a command of the topic, so be confident and passionate when you’re speaking. And above all, be nice, and have some fun.

If you have any other questions about how I'll evaluate the round, just ask.

LD/PF/Parli:

Not super experienced with any of these events, but TRUST I will understand whatever you decide to run. I more or less know about the PF and LD topics, but still explain your points clearly.

Tricks are cool - if you're going against them run theory I'll vote on it. Also you can run an RVI vs the theory I'll vote on it if its good enough cuz it disincentivizes frivolous theory.

K's and Phil is cool just explain your phil well and explain how it contextualizes the round don't just vomit a ton of lit at me and expect me to give you the win.

CX is super important, I don't necessarily flow it, but it helps speaks a lot.

Write my ballot in the final focus. Makes my job easier lol.

POLICY SPECIFICS:

These are guidelines. Don’t change what you’re running after reading this, this is just to know some of my opinions on things. Run what you know, and can debate best.

I will vote on literally anything (Death Good, Spark, Nihilism, Warming Fake, etc.) Just debate it properly.

Theory - Love theory debates on the Aff and Neg. Reasonability is not a response, you have to explain why it’s reasonable. But go ahead and be as dirty as you want lol debate is a game, if you can defend your interpretation of debate I’ll vote on it.

T - I love T. Affs that barely connect to the topic are pain to debate, so go ahead and try to penalize them by running a good T shell.

CP - Run literally whatever, but be able to defend yourself if you run a Process CP or PIC. I ran 4th Branch and White Supremacist CP all year so I love a good cheaty CP, and the resulting theory debate too.

K - Be very clear on Framwork, Alt, and ROB. I have experience with Set Col, Cap, Security/Militarism and Model Minority. Anything else will likely need you to explain yourself in plain terms, If I don’t understand the lit terms you’re using I cannot vote for you.

K -Affs - Don’t have an issue with these. Make sure to have a good response on the ROB vs Ballot Pic because that’s what I end up voting on a lot of the time.

DA - These are pretty standard. UQ, Link, I/L, Impact.

Case - I feel like the case debate is a lost art. So many Affs have terrible link chains. Solvency Takeouts and Link Takeouts are great and can literally be made as analytics to decimate an opponents case and force them to waste time by clarifying in their next speech. Go for Thumpers on literally every extinction impact. Impact Turns are also really fun.

I am a parent judge. I appreciate clear enunciation and reasonably paced speaking.

Current and up to date information and references are important to be me as part of the evidence.

Maintain decorum at all times during the debate.

I am keen on clear rationalization of the argument. Don't rush.

Convince me with good evidence and carefully made arguments. Minimize repetition.

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

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

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

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

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

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

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!

    My basic preference is for well explained and impacted arguments over techie line-by-line tricks. Basically, if you want me to vote on an argument, then the argument should be a substantial chunk of your speech and not a one liner on the flow. Slow it down and explain your arg. I'm not saying I won't listen to speed; I am saying in most debates fast doesn't equal better. Debate isn't Costco - More Cards/Arguments are Not Necessarily Desirable.

The Specifics: Topicality & Theory - I am ok with some T debate. Make sure the violation is clear and the substance of the debate is worthy of the time you are putting into it. Other theory is mostly a non-starter for me. I don't vote on the specs. If you are going for theory (not topicality), then you probably aren't winning this round.

Disads - The key to a good DA debate is impact calculus.

Counter-plans - Sure, why not? I'm a policy maker at heart.I err neg on all counter-plan theory. Basically, Counter-plan theory, for the most part, is a non-starter with me.

Kritiks - I'm not a fan of generic kritiks and rarely vote for a kritik without a plan specific link. If your idea of a good argument is Zizek, Nietzsche, or any generic K, then I'm not your judge. In terms of framework, I err negative. The K is part of debate - accept this and debate it. Use your aff against it.

Performance Aff's - I believe the aff should defend a clear USFG should policy. I am a policy maker.

DEBATE:

I am a parent judge. I appreciate clear enunciation and reasonably paced speaking.

Current and up to date information and references are important to be me as part of the evidence.

Maintain decorum at all times during the debate.

I am keen on clear rationalization of the argument. Don't rush.

Convince me with good evidence and carefully made arguments. Minimize repetition.

SPEECH:

This is my 4th year as a speech judge. I appreciate clear enunciation, well paced speaking and loud voice.

I enjoy HI and OO speeches. Time management is important. Use pauses and time gestures as appropriate.

Use a point based system awarded on respect for the format of the debate, keeping time. Any humor will be awarded extra points. You are here to learn and enjoy the art of debate - all the best!

My name is Eduardo Velazquez,

I’m a coach for Modern Brain. This is my first year judging LD. I prefer my delivery to be slow and conversational with a sense of haste. Ones Criterion may be a factor on my decision making- depending on the use. I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round. I come from Speech, but have been around debating events. I don’t mind if debaters are passionate for their topic, just keep it clean and Civil.

First and foremost: pronouns are she/her; you preferred pronouns will be respected.

I have done LD, IX, NX, OPP, Info, Imp, Policy, & Parli but I am well-versed in all events as I am currently a competitor in high school.

Both content and delivery are aspects that I base ranking/results on.

For debate, try not spread as much as possible (if you do, it is ok but I prefer to have your case in that situation because I do not want the decision to be because I missed something) and do not disrespect your opponent during round. I judge based off of my flow AND delivery.

For Interp - I look for good character distinction, clean blocking, good and natural inflection

For Platform - I look for structure that flows well, confidence/passion, appropriate hand-motions, good eye-contact, and a good use of inflection and speaking style.

For Spontaneous - I look for a well-developed understanding, a comprehensible speech, good eye-contact, and confidence is key!

If you think I may not understand something in your piece or case, explain it during your speech. Comprehension/clarity will play an important part in my judgement.

And of course, have fun. If you have fun, I can assure you, I will too.

Being racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. is an instant L. If you are feel uncomfortable or unsafe in round, please let me know.

Please add me to any email chain: aishivijayaraghavan25@mittymonarch.com

Lay judge! Please be slow and clear. Your arguments should not be overly complicated in the round. Be respectful to your opponents.

Email Chain: vanguarddebatedocs@gmail.com

Inquiries: lydiawang327@gmail.com

Sammamish '23 debated 3 years on the circuit, acquired 6 TOC bids reading policy and K arguments, and currently 1A/2N at the University of Houston.

Coaching Vanguard Debate, and Kinkaid.

Top level:

Shortcut---Policy/Theory/K>Phil>Tricks

Tech>Truth - Yes this includes wipeout, spark, death k, whatever. I will not intervene against those arguments or other arguments that are considered "dumb." I will vote on anything that has a warrant.

Callouts, Ad homs, screenshots = auto loss. I am not here to evaluate the character of the debaters in the round, just the arguments that are made. If there is an issue with safety in the round, you should contact your coach. This doesn't mean no disclosure theory, screenshots here are fine if you also forward the email chain to me/ link to wiki.

Inserting rehighlightings are okay ONLY if you explain why it matters/what the insert is saying. Otherwise, read them out loud if you want me to flow it.

---Marking a doc is prep time. If you ask for a marked doc, it's your prep, you should be flowing. The more dead time there is in a round, the lower your speaks will be. There are only speech time, tech time, cx time, and prep time, there is no such thing as flow clarification time---this is either prep or CX.

Policy:

- Default judge kick unless it's contested.

- Condo is good, Dispo does not mean you can set whatever condition you want, it means the NEG can't kick it if the AFF has straight turned the net benefit.

- Love a good politics debate - better for spin on evidence here than most others.

Planless AFFs:

- Prefer AFFs that clearly defend and commits to a concrete action/advocacy out of the 1AC.

- It will be hard to convince me that framework is "psychological violence".

Ks:

- Should prove that the plan is a bad idea.

- Prefer Ks that are functionally DA+CP that turns and solves case, but am also fine for framework Ks when done well.

- Uninterested in listening to super long overviews that don't serve any strategic purpose.

LD:

- Strike me if you plan on spreading through 30 lines of analytics the same way you spread through a card, if you are unflowable I will just flow in my head.

- "Debate is hard" is not a real warrant for theory. Default DTD, No RVIs, and Competing Interps on theory. I actually enjoy a good theory debate but the second it becomes affirming harder vs negating harder I will be sad.

- Evidence matters---I will not follow along during your speech but will look at evidence that is debated out in the round. Good research will be awarded with good speaker points.

- Been judging alot of phil rounds recently, I'm probably not that good for these debates so err on the side of more judge instruction.

- If your argument relies on your opponent dropping it for you to be able to win on it, then I probably will not like it - Clash is necessary for good debates. I do not vote on: Eval after 1AC/1NC, 30 Speaks theory, "I'm the GCB",

TLDR bc this paradigm is hella long: Tech, weigh, warrant everything, try not to spread

Email: itswebster2@gmail.com

I'm a Senior at Woodside Priory in CA, 5th year competing in PF, 3rd year coaching PF, this paradigm is set up for PF judging.

Fake Flow / Flay / Fake Flay / Fake Fake Flow. I'm basically a flow (trust). I don't like theory much but I'll evaluate it. K's confuse me, and i'll try to evaluate them. Frameworks are great, tricks are fine but lazy.

Spreading is goofy, I'll flow but I'll also tank your speaks, it doesn't matter if you send me a speech doc.

General Stuff❗:

Tech over truth if it's got an actual link and it's not a blatant lie.

Please don't assume that I understand the ins and outs of any given topic, and don't just drop a stock tagline and expect me to know the argument, I want actual warranting on everything.

Squirrelly args: great if they're warranted, I like sand mafia or trucking impacts.

Warrants: I need a thought out and explained warrant for everything. I will vote for the team that has strong, warranted responses / extensions in round over the team that sends me a speech doc and then spams at 350 wpm.

Weighing: Do it. Probability weighing is not weighing, I want to see actual evaluation of the impacts, not how likely they are to happen. You can evaluate probability but there should be actual weighing as well. 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, because it doesn't have a warrant. If you want to win on a turn, implicate and weigh it the same way you would with a contention.

In general + specifically the debt topic: Recent economics cards: inflation cards and whatnot should be cited with month and day, don't just give me the year of publication: as recent as possible.

Interaction: If there is no interaction whatsoever, at least on my flow, I'll always default to NEG, and both teams will get relatively low speaks.

Progressive Debate: Again, theory fine, k's are not. I do not enjoy theory but I'll still flow it. K's bamboozle me and I have no clue how to evaluate them (my bad). I'll give extra speaks if you successfully run something like shoe theory. However, don't run progressive args against obvious novices. DISCLOSURE THEORY SUCKS, I don't mind disclosure, but judging a disclosure theory round is torture. But if you win it, I'll reluctantly vote on it. Also if the team proves they're breaking a new case I drop the shell. Also, running an incredibly long shell in rebuttal DOES NOT give you permission to spread, it was your choice to run the shell, don't act like your only option is to spread.

Kritiks: know your literature. If you're just reading off some doc and you didn't actually put in the research and the hours, i'll be able to tell.

New Arguments: DO NOT bring up new points in 2nd Summary or Final Focus unless they were brought up in cross. Bringing up new evidence to back up a previous response is no good either. If you do it blatantly, I won't evaluate it. If you try to be sneaky about it, I'll either raise or drop your speaks depending on my mood.

Calling for Evidence: Go for it, don't steal prep while your opps find their evidence. If you want to call out the evidence, have at it, I just hope not to see a round where the only voter relies on the legitimacy of one card. I will never do my own research in round, and unless your opponent calls out evidence I'll evaluate it as true. If you send speech docs, I'll look through them to make sure there isn't any like blatant propaganda or sources from the 1800's, but that's about it. I'm not going to go to the wiki for your cases, if you want me to see them, do an email chain pls.

RFD: Generally I'll try to disclose at the end of the round, but the quality of the oral RFD may vary based on time constraints on ballot submission times / round schedule. If you want more in depth feedback, it will be in the RFD on tabroom. I will try to never just put "oral rfd" into the tabroom, because that is insanely bummy.

Debating non topical stuff: If both teams agree to debate another topic, I'll still judge it.

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. If both teams ask to skip grand cross, we can just skip it and give yall some extra prep time.

Post-Round: My decision will be final, and I will disclose. 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. If you ask for pointers on your case, i'll give them to you and tell you how to improve.

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:

Pre speech: "Hello judge, my name is x and I am the x speaker for x school" is bum activity, I will drop your speaks (maybe, its not that deep tbh). Just tell me where you're starting on the flow and we're good to go.

Music: If you play something hype before your speech I'll raise speaks based on how good it is (i have a scaling system), prob don't let it go into your speech unless I can still hear you clearly. It better not be drake tho. I luv playboi carti

Food: Give me food and I'll raise speaks, eat food and I'll lower them. Don't try to give me food in a virtual tournament.

Funny theory/framing: If it's funny it'll probably up your speaks.

If you win off of tricks, it will be a low-point win.

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 or anything if you go over time because it's obnoxious. That being said, you should be keeping track of your opponents time usage and vice versa.

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 tank your speaker points for it. Spreading sucks, only absolute goobers spread, don't do it if you value your speaks. If you spread and I can't hear you, I don't care if you send a speech doc, your speaks are getting tanked. If you're spreading *INTELLIGIBLY, I won't tank speaks depending on your opponents. Sometimes, spreading can be a way to escape the constraints of short speech times and give more nuanced and well researched arguments. Usually, it's just annoying.

Cross: You can be aggressive to a certain degree, but remember that it's just a debate, it's really not that deep, and there's no point in being rude. be chill. Its fine if cross gets heated, that's normal, but don't let it escalate into a shouting match. Also don't just have the final focus speaker go on mute during grand, i know you're stealing prep.

Lying and stuff: If you come into final focus and say "they completely dropped our turn on x" and then argue that you should win on it, when your opps gave like 3 extended responses to it, I'm not going to evaluate it as dropped, however I will "drop" your speaks (that's a pun). Also don't assume that I zone out during cross, I'll still pay attention, so if you say "they conceded x" when they obviously didn't during cross, I'll probably drop that point and tank speaks.

Ethics: Don't bring up a new carded response in second summary or either of the FFs. Don't just obviously google a statistic during cross. If you bring up a whole new point in FF that wasn't introduced during Grand Cross I'm not going to flow or vote off of it. If you're going to run Theory at least run it well, try to mask the fact that you probably just want an easy win and your actual cases are mid.

Disclosure good, disclosure theory rounds are unbearable. Disclosure theory sucks, if a team proves they didn't disclose because they're breaking a new case, I'll probably drop your shell. I'm more forgiving with funny shells tho. I do not care about powertagging, if the content of the card is not blatantly miscut, I don't really care if the tagline is an exaggeration. However, cutting evidence improperly is a lot worse, don't miscut cards or try to. I also don't care much for paraphrasing theory, but if you run it well i'll still vote on it. I personally don't have a problem with paraphrased cases as long as the card links are somewhere in there.

Inclusivity: If you are blatantly rude or offensive in round, you'll probably dip speaker points to below 27, or get dropped. Keep the round accessible, don't be a bum.

Non-PF Judging: I'll do my best to evaluate it off the flow. LD speech times and ethics debates scare me. Somebody please introduce progressive args into MUN.

Hey! I'm a flow judge with experience in PF, so I should be able to follow almost anything you can throw at me as long as it's well explained and warranted (but I'm better versed in more lay-adjacent debate). Be kind to your opponents; debate is only educational as long as it's accessible for everyone. BTW I will disclose my vote at the end of the round after I submit my ballot, and I will primarily give verbal feedback.

loop me into the card share at gracemwieland@icloud.com

General prefs:

tech > truth

cut cards = paraphrasing

sticky defense < non sticky defense

Lay v Prog prefs:

Substance/Lay rounds:

• I'm equipped to judge a lay round in any event
• In LD and Policy, you should consider me a flay judge. In PF, you can consider me a tech judge.
• I think in depth substance rounds are some of the most fun you can have in debate - look to the "how I evaluate" of my paradigm and you'll do great
• Honestly I really enjoy substance rounds
• Have fun and the winning will do itself

Theory:

• I'm familiar(ish) with theory but I never ran it during my debate career
• Anti disclosure, neutral on paraphrasing
• icl I honestly hate theory rounds they are often so unproductive and boring and I hate judging them
• if there's a real abuse in the round just ask to pause to round or do a TKO but theory shells honestly feel counterintuitive
• Don't run friv theory with me judging. I will drop you.
• I will vote off of "my parents/coach won't let me" for disclosure, and I will vote of off "we're novices and had no idea this was a growing norm, don't downvote us because we didn't know" -> Theory is to make debate a more equitable place, not to punish novices and small schools that just didn't have the same access to the circut
• TLDR: Don't read prog on inexperienced kids- it won't lead to better norms or discourse, it's just not nice.
• I'm also not a huge fan of disclosure theory when the violating team does some form of disclosure (ex. if their contact info is on the wiki, if they send full cases and evidence before round starts, round reporting theory when they disclose cut cards already, etc)
• I usually think shells should be read after the first instance of the violation (and counter interps should be read after the interp) but honestly if your opponents don't specify that you must respond in the next speech then I default to in-round arguments.
• IMPORTANT NOTE: If in round you feel actively unsafe / uncomfortable, you don't need to pull out a shell to deal with that - send me a quick message on the email I have at the top and I'll stop the round. Debate isn't productive if you feel unsafe.

Ks:

• I honestly do really enjoy K rounds
• My PF partner and I ran FEM IR, but I'm also familiar with the literature of cap K's, sec K's, setcol K's, and queer K's.
• I like identity K's more than things like Kant or Deontology but run at your own risk
• I am a PFer, so I'm not super familiar K affs and performance K's. If you want to run either, just give a lot of judge instruction throughout the round and write my ballot for me. I'm more experienced with Ks run on neg/ Ks with a clear link to the aff
• Make your link, impact, alt, and ROTB/ ROTJ very clear throughout the round. ROTB is like the ultimate framework -> I look to that first when evaluating
• If you're running T framework, please run it well. Blippy T framework is a nightmare for everyone involved.
• I think Ks can sometimes be run poorly/ people run them just to run prog - if you're running a K, please make sure it has a link, impact, and alt (and that you extend them). Its pretty obvious when people are running Ks they don't understand, and if you can't articulate the crux of the K to me, I won't vote on it.

Other Prog:

• I'm not a big fan of picks but go for it if you want to
• Similar with tricks- not the hugest fan of tricks but like if you and your opponent are down for it go ahead.
• I really don't love sparks or dedev but again if you feel like it and your opponents are down then I'm down.
• counterplans and plans are fine if they're allowed in your event. I really don't like PECs because they kill clash and aren't that fun but once again run it at your own risk- if you want to run it and your opponents are ok with it then I'll judge it.

Notes:

- I <3 squirrelly arguments -> run a non-stock arg well and I'll boost your speaks by 2 pts

- I can go up to 250 wpm comfortably if you have good enunciation. If you're not sure about the quality of your enunciation, just send a speech doc to be safe. (For K's specifically, I can go 300 if you slow down significantly for tags and speed up for the actual content of the card) if you're going faster than that, send a speech doc.

- 15 sec grace period and then I stop flowing

- I don't consider cross unless you bring it into one of your speeches - but if you have a really excellent cross, I'll boost your speaker points

- Off time roadmaps are appreciated

- I <3 overviews and underviews. it's just a stylistic thing I enjoy, and I think it can be strategic in a lot of rounds.

- extending through red lines isn't technically against any rules, but if your opponents call you out for it and extend their initial response I'll cross off your extension from my flow

*a note on speaks: I don't take speaker points off for stuttering, lack of eye contact, very high or very low expression, standing vs sitting, etc (for accessibility reasons.) The best way to boost your speaks is to have good coverage and write my ballot for me. Tell me: Where is the easiest place for you to win?

Process of evaluation:

1. T fw (if applicable)
2. ROB (if applicable)
3. FW / pre-req, link in's, short-circuts
4. Impact weighing
5. Unweighed offense you extended and have access too (I won't do the weighing for you, so if you don't weigh I just go off of the quantity of what you still have access too)
6. Evidence (only if I need to. Most of the time I won't look at the evidence unless there's card clipping or really intense misconstruing)

In depth notes on this:

• I look to the framework first, if there is any (if you're getting framed out of your argument, it doesn't matter if you have better access or weighing)
• I look to weighing immediately after framework -> good weighing can win you a round with me. Some notes on weighing: your weighing should always be comparative. Tell me why your impacts are more important than your opponents impacts, and warrant them. If you can get weighing in 1st rebuttal, that'd be great, but I'd like weighing to be in speeches by 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary. For weighing in 2nd rebuttal, it doesn't need to be lengthy, just about 10 seconds of analysis that your partner can elaborate on in their 2nd summary.
• I then look to extensions but ESPECIALLY FOR OFFENSE (I'm kind of a stickler for extensions - if you don't extend your contention, I'm not flowing that you have access to it) THIS INCLUDES EXTENDING AND WEIGHING TURNS. I should hear your argument in every speech after it's introduced if you want it to be a reason I vote for you.
• Having conceded defense on your case doesn't neccesarily mean you loose the round -> if your opponent has less or the same amount of offense (access to case/turns) I default to the weighing.
• That being said please try to not have conceded defense on your case if possible -> it makes my job easier when evaluating the round.

Speaks:

-I have a pretty high threshold for speaks (I really only give a 27 or below if there's problematic rhetoric the speech, or if you drop your opponents entire case or something like that. You'll probably get an 28+)

-if you want to boost your speaks I think it's pretty fun when you interact with your opponents rhetoric or metaphors. If they have a power line that you can twist in your favor, I'll boost your speaks.

-let me know if I'm judging your 4-1 bracketed round -> I'll boost the speaks of whichever I drop so they're not in the 4-2 screw.

Things that will win you a lay round with me:

-pleasesignpost I'm literally begging you. ESPECIALLY if you're going fast -> make sure I know where you are on the flow.

-warrant! Telling me that something "just is" a certain way is not very persuasive - you should be able to tell me WHY your evidence is true and HOW your contentions would metabolize if I voted for you.

-you have to implicate. like I can't exaggerate how important it is to implicate. for each piece of defense you extend, you need to tell me why I should believe your response more than your opponents' argument, what your response means in the context of the round, and how your response changes your opponents' ability to frontline/backline.

-extend in every speech. Your extensions don't need to be more than 15 seconds in PF or 30 seconds in LD or Policy, but PLEASE EXTEND. I will not flow your contention through if you don't mention your unqness, link, and impact in your speech -> ex. if you flow your link but not your impact or unqness, I will not flow that you have access to any part of your contention but your link.

-weigh!!!!

-I'll give you 30 speaks if you make a good joke (that isn't mean to your opponents and is sensitive to the topic at hand)

Max Wiessner (they/them/elle)

Put me on the email chain! imaxx.jc@gmail.com

I flow on paper (adjust your speed accordingly, allow for pen/flow time, and prioritize clarity over speed).

I'll flow what I hear and refer to the doc for evidence.

*****

0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, queerphobia, racism, misogyny, etc.

I have and will continue to intervene here when I feel it is necessary.

*****

About me:

5th-year policy debater at CSUF, started as a college novice (also did IEs). I've coached BP, PF, LD, and policy. Currently coaching LD and policy, so my topic knowledge is usually better in these debates.

• Debate is about competing theorizations of the world, which means all debates are performances, and you are responsible for what you do/create in this round/space.

• More than 5 off creates shallow debates & speaker points lie where the most knowledge is produced. clash/vertical spread >>>>>>

coaches and friends who influence how I view debate: DSRB, LaToya Green, Cat Smith, Kwudjwa Osei, Travis Cochran, Beau Larsen, Tay Brough, Jay-Z Flores, Curtis Ortega

"Education is elevation" -George Lee

Some thoughts on specifics:

• Are we having a debate about debate? survival? education? models of debate? what does my ballot do/signal/endorse/affirm? make that clear

Policy v K: I judge a lot of clash debates so these are probably the rounds where I give the most in-depth feedback. FW on the K should be a big thing in these debates.

• The link debate- Contextualized/specific links are best (pls), link analysis is key, and don't fall behind on the perm debate. (Severance is bad on a theory level and an ethics level, but you have to impact it out)

• The alt debate- Pls explain the alt... like actually... I've been judging a lot of debates lately where the 2NR goes for the K with the alt but didn't do nearly enough work in the block for me to feel comfortable voting on it. Help me be able to visualize what I'm voting for

K v K: I love a method v method debate, but clarity is key to keep the debate from becoming messy or difficult to evaluate (especially in LD bc time constraints) so please focus on creating an organized story.

• I'm well-read in lots of different areas of critical theory, but I still wanna know how those theories apply to this debate and this AFF (how did u interpret the lit?)

• I will never undermine your ability to articulate theory to me. ESPECIALLY if it's a creative/fun/unique AFF or K, I'm here for it. (also refer to note above about examples of the alt/method)

FW v K AFFs: I’m pretty split on these debates. I think in-round impacts and performances matter just as much as the legitimacy ppl tend to give to fiated plan texts bc debate is ultimately a performance, and education is probably the only material thing that spills out of debate.

• The AFF needs to explain the relationship the aff has to negation and adjudication, that's what defines this activity (unless you present a counter model, which I am also here for!)

• I tend to prefer the counter interp, easier for me to compare models. Not unwilling to vote for the impact turn tho

• Read a TVA -- Answer the TVA

I have a pretty low bar for what I consider "topical", so arguments like (procedural) fairness aren't an auto-voter for me. I love creative counter-interps of the res, but I think the AFF still has to win why their approach to the topic is good on a solvency AND educational level (that means clash and education are persuasive args to me). You need to prove why clash generated by the content of your stasis point is good/important/necessary

If I’m judging PF:

I think the best way to adapt to me in the back as a LD/Policy guy is clear signposting and emphasizing your citations bc the evidence standards are so different between these events

• also… final focus is so short, it should focus on judge instruction, world-to-world comparison, and impact calc

run whatever you like, I will do my best to judge the round in the way it is laid out for me

obviously don't say anything blatantly offensive

tech>truth, for more technical rounds you'll have to slow it down for me, given that I'm not the most well-versed on theory in the world

k's are fine, but refer to the theory advice above

I can't really follow spreading, so I'll vote on the flow, i.e based on what I got and understood from the round, which means you must be clear on stuff like impact weighing

assume I don't know anything about the resolution, but don't say anything that's obviously wrong i.e "us is a developing country" but I will be inclined to vote for something like climate change good if you have the appropriate framing and can get away with it

write your ballot for me in the rebuttal; tell me exactly why I should vote for you and what I should vote on

will up speaks if you drop a harvey specter quote

my debate experience is from William Turner

wsg everyone

i do parli, impromptu, spar, info, and occasionally wsd and ipda but ive judged ld and pf (and a bunch of speech events) too

for debate:

i'm chill on speed, tech > truth

for neg: im not against conditionality or plan inclusive c/ps as long as you can defend why you should be allowed to keep it in round. i love procedurals, Ks, and theory tbh so do with that what you will

for aff: if you can actually prove why the c/p is worse than the plan... i'll be impressed since theres usually less restrictions on neg. im not against aff Ks. i will say i personally like being aff more but i dont think it's easier to win on aff.

don't run any ad hominem attacks bc that's not chill i'll drop you for lack of decorum (#prideandprejudice) and give you like 9.5 speaks.

basically run whatever do what makes you happy but ill give you 30 speaks if you speak in iambic pentameter. if you crack jokes and i laugh you can bank on getting good speaks. i won't drop your speaks if you have bad posture or if you treat the round as more conversational than professional bc i've had that done to me... like yeah we're here to learn but it's chill to have fun with it. i think speaks are a completely arbitrary system and can be really unfair, so instead of judging on how eloquently you speak/how many times u stumble i'm using the speaks system to measure your judge adaptation.

i value weighing (impacts, prob/mag, solvency). please collapse. it can be hard i know but taking an L is harder

for speech:

personality! be fun and engaging- i've been in rounds where every speech was monotone and it was pretty sad. don't be rude it's literally speech.

some guy i know whose opinion i value greatly:

William Turner

⁃ Please be respectful in the round

⁃ Talk as slowly and clearly as possible, things that I don’t catch will not count towards the round

⁃ I will give speaker points based on structure, clarity in speeches, confidence and connectivity, and how you defend your argument (PF)

⁃ No tolerance for inappropriate behavior, be professional with others

⁃ Feel free to ask me any questions before/after the round

⁃ Have fun and good luck!

I am a lay judge, so please speak at a normal pace.

Speaker Points:

Be to the point and concise

Be organized: Give roadmaps

Don't cut your opponents off in crossfire

Weigh in summary and final focus: Tell me why you win

Extend in summary, don't bring up new topics as second speaker during summary

Final Focus:

-Voter Issues

Background: pf at leland (c/o 26)

- add me to the chain: jameesyu@gmail.com

- tech>>>truth, debate is a game, tabula rasa, debate however you want, I’ll adapt.

- racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. -> L-25

fundamentals:

· How I evaluate: Weighing -> Defense -> Offense

· collapse in 2nd rebuttal. frontline all turns and defense on what you're going for.

· I'll eval weighing at the latest in first final. I am cool with good probability weighing. weighing must be comparative.

· I don't flow cross; mention concessions in a speech

· send a doc if you're going over 250 wpm. If you don't and I can't understand you, I will stop flowing.

· implicate turns. If you don't tell me why I prefer your turn over their link, I will treat the turn as a disad. I don't care if FDI causes corruption if the opponents still win offense which saves 100 million people. Don't leave it up to the judge to intervene.

· if your opponent's evidence is miscut, call it out and I'll look at it. I will only look at evidence if I am told to in round. Evidence must be carded. If not, my bar for responses is super low. paraphrasing is fine as long as you have a cut card to back up the rhetoric (will still eval para theory)

prog:

I can and will evaluate them. Most familiar with T and tricks. My bar for responses to friv theory is very low. I generally default CI and no RVIs but it is up to you to tell me what I should say prefer for your round. Wining No RVIs does not mean your opponents can't win off the CI. If you are trying to determine the best norms in debate, then if their CI norms are better they should win.

For more info on how I evaluate rounds, some of my biggest mentors in debate are Aniket Mittal, Daniel Xie, Jeannine Yu, and Ananth Menon. You can look at their paradigms.

Good Luck!

2024- 2/4/2024

I'm not just any judge; I'm a ”cool” judge with a journey dating back to 2000. So, when you step into this arena, know that you're dealing with someone who's witnessed the ebb and flow of the debate currents over the last 2 decades. I am old.

General:
Yes you can go fast if you want to, just be clear, and loud enough for me to hear. I will be flowing along and won’t look at doc’s or cards unless warranted by y’all. I will do my best to time with you.

World Crafting:

Your task is to construct a compelling narrative, competing worlds, both sides have a world to offer, you sell it.

Argument Framing:

Frame your arguments as pillars that support the world you've built. Your job is to make me see the strategic significance of your narrative. Don't just present; show me why your world outweighs the others.

The K:

I have a soft spot, but only if done well. Critical acumen is your secret weapon. Integrate it seamlessly into your world, making it a key component of your narrative. I also am not a fan of non black POC running afropress, or similar k's, so please don’t. Other than that, no issues with K’s.

Theory:

Preemptive theory is unnecessary imo unless the topic warrants it, but most debates do not need a theory most of the time, but it is your round, so do you.

Tech vs. Truth:

Truth sometimes trumps tech, and in other rounds, tech might take the lead. But what matters most is how well your crafted world stands.

Rudeness is a No-Go:

Discourteous vibes won't elevate your speaks. For real

Impact Calculus and Critical Thinking:

Impact calculus is the key to your world's strategic significance. Dive into critical thinking, showing why your crafted universe is not just valid but important.

Authentic Knowledge Over Blocks:

Don't just parrot blocks; show genuine understanding. Bring knowledge to the forefront, not just rehearsed lines.

Voting Issues:

Present me with clean voting issues – make it glaringly apparent why your world is the one I should endorse. THERE IS NO 3NR. So please make it definitive in the last rebuttal

TL;DR

Be clear

Weigh

Impact calculus

liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com

>If you want to add me to the chain or send hate mail.<

2023
i will flow to the best of my ability i have the carpal tunnel but can still keep up
spreading is only chill if you are clear
I don't need to be on the email chain but here it is if you feel like adding me anyway
liberal.cynic.yo@gmail.com
I am indifferent to the kind of argument you are choosing to use, i care if you understand it

ask questions

My paradigm was lost to the void, who knows what it said...

for long beach 2018
i'll make this, and fix it later

1. yes, i flow

2. yes, speed is fine

3. flashing isn't prep (unless it takes wayy to long )

4. i look at the round as competing narratives, i do not care what you run as long as you know what it is you are running

5. ask questions

I tend to favor more analysis and weighing than just throwing evidence at one another.

Don't use theory or shells, its too complex for me to understand well, and I doubt you can use it well enough it gives an advantage.

I grade you with 40% content, 40% style, and 20% strategy

I am a parent judge. Please speak at slower pace and articulate clearly. Please also add zhangyali@gmail.com to the email chain and send your case file before your round. Label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”