Hello! My name is Hamza, and I am currently a a rising senior at Cary Academy in Cary, North Carolina. It is possible that I may ask you to share your documents with me before the round starts so that it is easier for me to follow the arguments that you make. My email is: hamza_adnan@caryacademy.org. I am a Lincoln-Douglas debater and have competed in over 30 tournaments over the course of my first three years of high school. I also have limited experience with Congressional and World Schools Debate.

I don't have many specific preferences regarding your style of debate. I personally enjoy any and all types of debate and will listen to and try to understand pretty much any argument that you provide, as long as it is logical and you are able to defend it well. If you talk a bit faster than a conversational pace, then that is totally fine! I have competed in Lincoln-Douglas long enough that I am fairly used to fast speakers. However, I would still like to be able to hear what you are saying. If you are speaking so fast that I cannot figure out what you are saying, then I won't be able to flow it.

I will keep detailed notes and a rigorous flow as the round progresses. I will keep time but I encourage you to keep time as well. I usually allow a 10-second grace period, meaning that I will let you speak for up to 10 seconds after your time is up and if you still continue to speak, then I will have to cut you off.

I will try to be as generous with speaker points as possible. If you generally spoke well and articulated your arguments in an effective, insightful manner, then you are guaranteed at least 28 speaker points. More specifically, here is the scale by which I award speaker points.

30 - insanely amazing speaker, one of the best speakers in tournament, deserves to go extremely far in the tournament

29 - great speaker, significantly above average, went above and beyond in argumentation and should advance pretty far in the tournament

28 - good speaker, generally good argumentation, slightly above average, should at least win some of their rounds in the tournament

27 - average speaker, generally okay argumentation but could and should have done better in many different areas

26 - a 26 is very rare. I will only give you a 26 if you do one of two things: a) say something offensive, or b) don't respond to any arguments at all and go completely off-topic during your speech about something that isn't even remotely related to the topic being debated.

Middle School NSDA Nationals Competitors: I am truly thrilled to have the opportunity to judge you all! This will be an amazing experience for everybody and please know that one win or loss, one 30 or 26, does not define you as a person or as a debater and you all still have so much merit to offer!

I will provide extensive comments and oral feedback at the end of the round for both competitors. If you still have any other questions, comments, concerns, or simply want me to provide you with even more feedback after the round or tournament is over, please do not hesitate to reach out to me. Again, my email is hamza_adnan@caryacademy.org.

My experience: I've done 6 years of PF, 4 years of Worlds, some parli and LD. I won NSDA Nationals in Worlds with West LA Violet.

TLDR:Make it easy for me to vote for you: collapse to your best arguments, tell me exactly why you won the round, and weigh your arguments. I am a traditional debater, K's and unnecessary theory will fly over my head. Don't be a jerk.

Tiktok: @babbacious

Email: babbkati@grinnell.edu

I am so sorry but I will forget your off time road map immediately after you say it. You can still say it but please sign post, even in the beginning. ex: "starting off on their case..."

I do not take any knowledge or opinions with me into the round (I reserve the right to drop you if you blatantly lie to me). So you MUST tell me why I should prefer your rebuttal over your opponent's argument or vise versa. You must tell me why I should be more convinced otherwise it is a wash.

LD:

To sum it up, I am a traditional debater. What this means is that I don't have experience with Ks and generally do not enjoy theory, especially when the theory isn't helpful to the round. I leave my opinions at the door, so you have the benefit of me believing everything you tell me (don't lie), but the burden of telling me why/how your opponents are wrong. I vote off of weighing: you need to tell why your arguments/impacts are stronger than your opponents (are they more probable? do they affect more people? do they happen longer?) -- think impact calc. Additionally, this is not policy, link your arguments back to your value/value criterion. Please see the bottom of my paradigm for my general debate preferences.

PF:

I believe public forum is a debate event that anyone should be able to judge: debate how you would in front of your classic soccer dad (meaning don't spread, explain things thoroughly, treat me like a lay judge). That being said, I debated for over 6 years, so I will flow and evaluate arguments as such. Note theory and Ks do not belong in public forum, do not put them there. Please weigh. FF is the most important speech, tell me the key reasons you win, do not rebuttal. Please see the bottom of my paradigm for my general debate preferences.

For Parli/Worlds:

I don't care about your studies or examples or statistics if you don't tell me WHY they are true and the LOGIC behind them. TERMINALIZE YOUR IMPACTS, ASK POIs, and WEIGH. I vote off of weighing, it doesn't matter if you win your argument if you don't tell me why it is the most important to me.

If you don't offer at least 2 POIs you won't get higher than a 27.4 for speaker points.

Parli Specific

No friv theory. If you are running a K, I am not familiar with any K literature other than a spreading K. Make it easy and accessible or do not run it. I very much dislike Ks other than ones about spreading/accessibility of debate, or any if your opponents are racist, sexist, antisemitic... Do not spread. Accept at least 1 POI in your speech if given the opportunity. I will protect the flow but feel free to POO anyways.

Worlds Specific

I will not be excited if you speak very fast, if you use cards (don't mistake cards for examples), if you use debate jaron (ex: perm, squo), or if you don't collapse the debate in the 3rd speeches. Note: the reply speech is not the fourth rebuttal-if you do not weigh, I will not be doing it for you and will tank your points. Remember the protected time and ask POIs. I find POIs integral to the event and will be evaluating your strategy using them. I also value traditional worlds debate, please do not bring policy and ld into this event.

Key issues for all debate:

*Collapse and Weigh. Don't go for every argument you make-pick 1 or 2 and let me know why they've won you the round. That being said, if there's no clash or attacks on your case and you feel like you can fully explain 3 arguments go for it-but make sure to weigh or I'll just pick the argument I like the most (and we both won't be happy).

*I don't flow crossfire, bring up any important issues in speeches.

*Cards don't cancel out cards without reasoning, let me know why their evidence is flawed/why I should prefer yours. Examples don't cancel out examples too.

*I won't call cards unless you ask me to or unless it seems obviously false/made up. Don't make up evidence, cut evidence so that the meaning of the card is different, or lie to me, you will get the lowest speaker points available, the loss, and reported to the tournament. Debater: call out evidence you need me to check. I will call the card after the round to read it myself.

*I don't like tricky frameworks, keep it simple or have great warranting. Debates should not be entirely framework or definition debates-I dislike those.

*I have a basic understanding of theory/kritiks, but I have a PF&Worlds background so if you do run it, have warrants, but I won't be overjoyed and most likely won't understand. I am a traditional debater, if you do run these against another traditional debater and try to win on sheer tech, it will not go well for you.

*You have to explain warranting otherwise I will not buy your argument.

*Don't "card bomb" I prefer a couple of key responses with logic/evidence to support it. if you read several cards, take the time after to explain the importance and why I should care.

* I like empirics on top of logic, but if something just makes sense I will most likely buy it.

*Don't be tricky. Don't be condescending or rude, don't be a douche. If you are going against a novice be accessible in your words: don't use jardon or push tricky arguments on them. Debate is about accessibility and having fun and if you do any of these things, you don't deserve to win the round.

*Do not call your opponents or their case names. No personal attacks. I will give you a 24 for speaker points. Calling your opponents names is not an adequate refutation.

*I do not take any knowledge or opinions with me into the round. So you MUST tell me why I should prefer your rebuttal over your opponent's argument or vise versa. You must tell me why I should be more convinced otherwise it is a wash.

I go by normal speaker point standards where 27.5 is the average. 30 is I think you could win finals at the tournament and below a 24 is you stabbed your opponent with a pencil.

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!

Introduction:

Hey y'all,

I am now in my seventh year of coaching Public Forum. Although I am more experienced than a lay judge, I still like a good narrative explanation of the round with less focus on technicality and more focus on clash.

Pronouns: He / Him / His

Speaking:

Clarity and Speed are my two biggest concerns. Speak clearly and, for all that is good in this world, do not spread (I will try to make exceptions for LD and Policy judging, but if I stop taking notes and just start staring at you, you should probably slow down).

Evidence:

In the event of an argument concerning the validity of a piece of evidence, I will require the evidence and any contrary evidence if available. Any evidence which does not have an accessible citation will be thrown out. Any evidence which bears marks of intentional tampering or distortion will be grounds for an immediate loss for the offending party.

Argument:

Basic style - Claim, Warrant, Impact. Make sure to evaluate impacts on both sides of the debate. A comparative debate with clash between arguments makes it easy for me to determine who won the round. For Policy and LD, I will not judge Kritiks* (Ks), so please do not run them in front of me. My personal belief (and you may disagree with this) is that Ks defeat the educational purpose of debate by eliding the resolution. For example, if I am expecting to learn about the merits and drawbacks of deep sea exploration, I will be disappointed if the focus is on whether capitalism is evil. I apologize for being a debate norms Luddite, but consider this fair warning.

*NOTE: I will make exceptions for teams that only have Kritiks as cases, but they must be incredibly compelling.

Etiquette:

Please don't be rude (i.e. snarkiness, frequent interruption, and condescension). Repeated rudeness, despite quality of speeches, will result in lower speaker points. Do not attempt to race-bait, gender-bait, or villainize your opponents. It is not your opponents' faults that they may have to argue justifiable but morally-bankrupt positions (for example, political realism and state security over humanitarianism). Unless your opponent is arguing something intrinsically heinous like eco-fascism or colonialism, you will hemorrhage speaker points for engaging in this behavior.

Addendum:

If you have any questions not clarified in the paradigm, please ask before the round. I will be more than happy to answer any questions, comments, or concerns.

Email: sonia.chill12@gmail.com

tldr

Overall, just do what you want to do and have fun with it – that’s the most important thing. Speed and any arguments are fine. Tech > truth.

Background

I'm a junior and currently debate LD for Strawberry Crest High School, qualled to nats all 3 years of school and broke to semis last year.

Overview

I am willing to evaluate and vote on any argument that you want to read as long as it is not offensive. This means I’ll listen to any tricks, theory, larp, Ks, performance, high theory or phil as long as your argument is warranted and you explain it well. I am very much a tech >> truth judge, and I will try to be as tab as possible.

Some things to keep in mind:

1) Please give me some way to evaluate your argument (like a ROB, standard, drop the debater, etc.) so it is easier to make a non-interventionist decision.

2) Speed is fine as long as you're clear. I would like to be on the email chain but I won’t flow off the doc, I’ll just look at cards or arguments after if I have to. Also, slow down on tags if possible.

3) Just go with what your most comfortable with; even though I was primarily a theory/T/framework debater, I would rather see you do well in a different style of debate then poorly in those areas.

Framework

I really enjoy learning about different frameworks as a debater and think framework debate is very interesting. Justify your framework however you want but plz explain your syllogism or independent justifications well, especially if you want to read a complicated position, so it is easier for me to understand it. High Theory is also fine but it is important you explain it well. If no framework is read (don’t let this happen), I will assume a TT ROB.

Theory/T

This was probably the style of debate that I am best at. I love going for theory and T as a debater and think it can be very strategic (and sometimes un-strategic) at times. Please read voters and paradigm issues with warrants (drop the debater/argument, RVIs, etc.). If nothing is read, I will default to drop the debater, and no rvis but I’m not going to assume anything is a voter. However, if your opponent does not read drop the debater or no rvi warrants, I will have a really low threshold for you to win drop the arg or rvis. T and T framework are also perfectly fine with me, just make sure you warrant all your standards and stuff.

Tricks

I think tricks debate is really fun and strategic at times. Read whatever bs argument you want, I’ll vote on it as long as it has a warrant. However, you still have to win your argument; for example, just because your opponent concedes an a priori, if you're not winning truth testing you’re a priori may not matter (depends on the argument obviously). I read a lot of tricks in high school but don't assume I understand every trick so still make your argument coherent enough for me as the judge to understand it so I can vote on it.

Kritiks

I never read that many Ks/performance as a debater but I debate against a lot of critical positions and I’m familiar with the common literature. I am comfortable with you reading any kritik you want including high theory but just plz explain your argument and do a lot good work on the link debate. You need to make it clear why the aff links into the kritik. Performance is also okay.

LARP

I did a fair amount of LARP debate during my sophomore year, my second year on the circuit. I think LARP debates can make for some really good clash and if this is your thing then plz go for it. This means CPs, DAs, spek advocacies, perms etc. are all okay. I’m familiar with most of the policy jargon but sometimes the lingo gets overused so be careful of that lol.

Speaks

I’m probably a little bit more generous in speaks than other judges but I will adjust my speaks scale and average based on the tournament and the difficulty of the pool. I will award speaks based on in-round strategy and technicality of speeches. Also, if you read a creative position instead of a generic and debate well with it, there’s a better chance that I will give you higher speaks. Finally, good use of cross-ex will definitely enhance your speaks.

MS Nats:

I’ll give an auto 30 speaks if you bring me a drink or some type of candy (i don’t like sour things as much or soda, lemonade and tea things>>)

I’m a rising senior and done LD most of hs and some ms, I’m okay w basically any speed but if you know you’re gonna be significantly faster, emailing docs would b appreciated.

Email- cindy.cici2012@gmail.com

I’ll vote on anything extended enough and weighed, if you don’t and your opponent does i’ll default to their weighing. I don’t flow cross bring it up in your speech if something significant was said.

Losing fw debate isn’t the end of the world if you just win under theirs, i’ll weigh according to the rounds fw don’t assume i’ll evaluate numbers and big stick impacts first if util isn’t the winning one.

Be nice and patient don’t act like your opponent is dumb, i frown upon excessive aggression (both wording and tone/volume) but speaks are ultimately mainly based on fluency for me. unless you bring like chocolate or juice or things like that then do wtv

Hello all! I am excited to judge you!!

my email: victoriadrengel@gmail.com

Things you should know:

1. evidence: use and reference evidence! this means extending the warrants and referencing cards by name
2. spreading: if you choose to spread please be clear; I flow by hand so please give me time to adjust.
3. ballots: give me as much judge instruction as possible ie. write out my ballot, however you choose to do so.
4. tech/truth: I am more tech over truth unless blatantly obvious, especially if other parts of the flow interact with that specific portion of the debate
5. signpost: lmk the number of pages I will need, the order, the names of pages, and lmk if you are doing an extra long overview
6. cross-examination: I am fine with open cross-examination but make sure both partners speak equally and in a balanced manner; also please be respectful as debate is first and foremost an educational activity and should be a safe space.
7. I'm fine with any arguments with obvious exceptions ie. don’t be racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. Nonetheless, I am the most familiar with kritiques: cap, security, antiblackness, and sett col
8. >5 off: you will probably lose me in these debates, but again SIGNPOST

I debated LD for William G. Enloe High School, graduating in 2024. I qualified for the TOC senior year. I now attend Johns Hopkins University.

he/him

please use speech drop my email is down

This paradigm used to be way longer since I figured it would be more informative to those inexperienced with prefs. I have concluded that writing copious amounts for some sections and less for other sections gave the incorrect conclusion that I prefer certain types of arguments more than others. So instead, I will provide a list of quotes from the paradigms of those I respect and hope that sums up my judging philosophy well enough.

**DO NOT MAKE ME PUT A LINE IN HERE ABOUT CALLOUTS USE YOUR COMMON SENSE PLEASE**

"I will vote on anything." -Brett Cryan

"Tech over truth. I do not share the sensibilities of judges who proclaim to be technical and then carve out an exception for death good, wipeout, or planless affirmatives. The only situation in which I will not vote on an argument is when forced to by the Tabroom." -Rafael Pierry

"This is your debate, not mine. Do not abuse that privilege." -Vaish Sivamani

"I think I naturally give lower speaks than most judges, but there’s also usually around 2-3 rounds where debaters ask for higher speaks/30s, so don’t read too much into it" -Eva Lamberson (rip old paradigm)

"Perm double bind" -Aidan Etkin

Here's my old paradigm for those who care

Yes, I want to be on the chain. email: doddsbw1@gmail.com

PLEASE HAVE FUN! debate is fun :) engage in practices that benefit our community and represent it well. Debate is an activity in which many, myself included, have found their passion--use your common sense and leave debate better than you found it.

TL;DR: I am a tech/flow judge. Weigh. Be accessible.

I’m the LD coach for Minnetonka High School. I did debate all 4 years of high school on the Minnesota circuit, mainly. Only competed circuit like once a season.

Alright, now onto the actual paradigm. General stuff at the top, circuit stuff at the very bottom.

Equality in Forensics Winter Championship

Like any tournament on the national circuit, this tournament pulls together an eclectic mix of localities & experience levels. Please be understanding of differences in norms and accommodate each other in good faith. The emphasis I place on accessibility will be even stronger at this tournament.

Also, since we are online, I'd appreciate it if speech docs were shared and if you're extra clear.

I have a lot of patience for tech issues but very little for taking advantage of them for prep theft (and I will know if that's what you're doing).

If you're a novice and I am judging you

LD Novice Guide: A little cheat sheet/glossary for speech times, flow structure, case structure, and general debate terms.

Nov/Dec 2023 Topic

Please do evidence comparison on this topic! It's another one of those topics where there's constantly various studies flying back and forth and it seems like debaters have forgotten how to do good evidence comparison.

In general, I'd prefer it if you ran wholeres, or if you only spec mechanism/enforcement of the plan. Really don't want to see clash-avoiding plans where just fracking is banned in like two states. Also wouldn't like to see PICs.

General notes

I am definitely tech>truth, and I prefer good argumentation>presentation. Don’t be monotonous or spread at locals, but otherwise be as technical and use as much jargon as you want. You can assume I have some topic knowledge, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't explain your arguments clearly. If I have no clue what you're actually arguing, my threshold for voting against the arg is low.

You need to explain the implications of CX concessions, drops, turns, etc. If you make an argument, don't expect me to implicate it for you. Rounds are very hard to decide when the debaters are so wrapped up in the line-by-line that they fail to explain the implications of the line-by-line.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE extend specific cards and warrants if your opponent reads a generic block against them! A huge missed opportunity I see all the time in all divisions is debaters responding to generic blocks/arguments without realizing that their original contention contained a card/sentence/warrant that accounted for or had an embedded response against the block. Be specific, be nuanced, and be surgical.What separates a good and a great debater is the extent to which they're able to be specific and nuanced. Debaters who rely on broad strokes instead of surgical nuance will almost always lose to debaters who know and can explain the specific mechanisms of arguments.

On the MN circuit, please keep it relatively trad. I will err heavily on the side of trad norms, so be circuit-y at your own risk. Be accessible, please.

A walkthrough of my decision making process:

1. Evaluate which framework to use and any other constraints like burdens or contentious definitions.
2. Look at the articulated offense under these frameworks.
3. Look at the defense on said offense; this helps me determine risk of offense.
   
   
4. Evaluate the weighing done on this offense under the framework (s).
5. Make my decision based on who has the most offense under the framework.

I place an emphasis on good, explicit weighing. If you don’t weigh you won’t get my ballot.

Some people that have influenced my understanding of debate (too lazy to link their paradigms so just look them up lol)

-Raymond Zhang: coach freshman and sophomore year, learned the basics from him

-Sam Anderson: judged often by him and agree w his paradigm

-Nick Smith: judged by him a lot and agree w his paradigm

SPEAKER POINTS

I'll default to somewhere between 28-28.5; points will go up or down from there.

Things that will get you high speaks:

-Any kind of turn, but especially impact turns

-Not using any analytics--don’t just read a card as a block without explaining the implications

-Being extremely clear where you are on the flow

Circuit Pref Shortcut:

LARP/Trad-1

T-2

Neg Ks-3

Simple phil-3

Theory-4

K affs/tricks/phil that you don’t even understand and are just spitting out because you found an overcomplicated Levinas FW-Strike

Unless otherwise instructed, I default to CI and DTD on theory.

If you are using fiat to get out of neg offense, you should make some sort of justification for your version of fiat-fiat comes in all shapes and sizes and interpretations.

So I've been debating for a while now and have come to understand the event very well. As far as the argument goes I value the argument over speaking. The way ill weigh an argument is a good claim with warrant with an evidence to back it up. If you can't provide an card or evidence then you must have very good logical reasoning other wise I can not weigh it as I can't see the rational for the point. If you present a card have it be resolutional, I want to see how the card actually has an effect on a argument. (for example lets say majority of people like the color purple therefore they like the color pink less, you need to have evidence for the cause or at least some sort of correlation)

When it comes to speaks please be clear, loud I don't mind fast talking but if I can't note it down I can't weigh it so as long as you don't spread you will be okay.

Good luck!

So I've been debating for a while now and have come to understand the event very well. As far as the argument goes I value the argument over speaking. The way ill weigh an argument is a good claim with warrant with an evidence to back it up. If you can't provide an card or evidence then you must have very good logical reasoning other wise I can not weigh it as I can't see the rational for the point. If you present a card have it be resolutional, I want to see how the card actually has an effect on a argument. (for example lets say majority of people like the color purple therefore they like the color pink less, you need to have evidence for the cause or at least some sort of correlation)

When it comes to speaks please be clear, loud I don't mind fast talking but if I can't note it down I can't weigh it so as long as you don't spread you will be okay.

Good luck!

wells.finch1020@gmail.com

Experience- Debating LD, PF, and CX for five years with a little bit of congress and IEs sprinkled in (at Mountain Brook)

I don't judge often but I know what I'm doing

Ask me questions after the round bc you likely won't see me again

Progressive stuff-idc just know what you're doing

Tech>truth (you still need decent warrants)

DONT READ A PARAPHRASED CASE

give an off time road map, like neg aff, not I'm going to start on my opponents C1 and refute this and that and then go to their C2 and do that and this. That's too long, I'll give low speaks for that

Sign post-if I don't know where you are, I can't flow what your saying

I'll time you but I'm not going to cut you off. I stop flowing after about ten seconds, but you can talk for as long as you feel like, it'll just be a waste of our time.

be nice

Cross- If it isn't brought up later in round I won't evaluate it (be nice)

Read a case with cut cards

Speed is fine but I flow the speech so if I can’t understand you I’ll just stop flowing

Give me weighing

Clash is super important

Feel free to text me if you have questions after round or if you think that I should know something before the round.

(205)-517-3521

Ask me anything beforehand if you are confused or have any other questions

If you say anything sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic, etc I'll drop you with a 0

LD:

I find value based arguments based on how things ought to be over policy to be most persuasive in LD debates, although policy as support can certainly be useful and demonstrative. Progressive argumentation is fine, and spreading is fine as long as it can still be understood. I expect the winning argument to be persuasive and effectively communicated, I should feel that I have been made to believe in what is being said and why you should win. If I need your case in writing to follow it, it won't be as persuasive and will be judged accordingly. I expect the debaters to set the terms, rules and ultimately the outcome of the debate based on what is said, not left unsaid. I won't connect the dots for your arguments, explain it me. I'm a huge fan of philosophical arguments setting up for clash. I'm familiar with a variety of K's and KvK's are great. I enjoy a debate that both an expert and a lay-judge can identify a winner. As far as speakers, I am looking for well paced delivery, sign posts, strong framing and weighing being presented effectively to tell me why you will win.

General prefs

1 Value Framework/Phil

2 Policy/ K's

3 Theory

4 Tricks

PF: I'd really prefer to see pf done the way it was intended. In other words pure policy and impact weighing without utilizing more progressive methods of debate. That being said, I'll judge it the way the debaters wind up debating the topics. So if you go tech rather than substance I'll still be able to judge properly. Generally I don't expect a value framework and the default is util calculus. Creative and unique arguments will be

Congress: I'm looking for congressional debaters to display appropriate round vision and understanding of the argumentation and how it is interacting on the chamber floor. A great constructive speech given in the middle of a session without clash won't be judged as well as if it were given earlier. I like to see good utilization of questions to impact the debate in chambers, as well as good clash during speeches with direct refutation of other congressional reps. Speeches at the end of a debate on a bill should be more crystallization speeches, and preferably give me weighing mechanisms for how to vote on each bill. Delivery matters, but proper understanding of the interaction of argumentation and directing that debate appropriately impacts my ballot the most heavily. Good funny AGD's are always appreciated as well as some LARP in congress is always nice to see. Proper framing of the issues is something lacking in most congress sessions and doing so will help you stand out on my ballot.

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

Heyyyyy,

I debated for 2.5 years at Cal State Long Beach. I am now a debate coach at Cal State Long Beach. I was a K Debater running arguments pertaining to Afro-Pess, Misogynoir, Reproductive Justice (& Feminism in general), sexual politics, and colonialism. During my time at Long Beach I also competed in IPDA and Parli; also having debate experience in World Schools.

Please add my email to the chain: jaysynteacher20@gmail.com

Judging style:

I understand the debate space as an academic site centered on the development and dissemination of knowledge. Primarily a discursive activity, I want to know the importance of theorizing and discussing specific ideas within the space. I am very Truth over Tech and my RFDs will center logic and reason over the technical aspects of the debate (unless the technical is very glaring within the round). I am extremely receptive to historical and sociological theory and use these things to understand arguments.

Things I find helpful within debates: what is the role of the judge? How should I evaluate arguments? What about their plan, methodology, alt, etc. is bad or harmful? how do arguments interact with each other?

K AFFs:Your theory should be the foundation and the background of ALL of your explanations within the debate. You should be using the vocabulary of your 1AC throughout every flow. Please refrain from using buzzwords with no explanation. I like High Theory but don't assume I walk into the room knowing the specifics of your arguments. I expect K Affs to be able to adequately answer generic K's and FW.

Policy AFFs: Because I am Truth over Tech I would like to see y'all interact with such truths. For instance, if your opponents read Set Col and the 2AC extends the Russia/China advantages with generic extinction impacts, this will not move me. I would be impressed to hear how the specifics of your plan affect various indigenous groups or the project of settler colonialism in general. In essence, I would like particular interaction with the details of your opponent's arguments rather than proceed forward with "everyone dies under extinction, and this overwhelms the links"

Go ahead and speak at the speed you are most comfortable.

I flow on paper and I also tend to flow CX paying attention to interesting moments or points made.

I also pay heavy attention to the way power flows through the debate space and I am critical of the space people take up within round. With that said I like it when debates get heated but just make sure to be reasonable with one another.

Tell me how to navigate the debate. Persuade me and you have my ballot.

If you have any questions feel free to ask but other than that, Happy Debating!

Jaysyn Green (she/her)

Beach Forensics

Here's a couple of things you'll probably want to know about me before round begins:

As a judge, I have 3 years of debate background and 2 years of speech. LD is my absolute favorite, but I have also competed in PF before. I LOVE traditional LD debate, but can follow progressive debate if that's the way you and your opponent want to take the round. The best way to win my vote is impacts, but I will use comms as a tiebreaker. Have both comms and impacts and you'll most definitely win my ballot. Voters are huge for me, but if you try to claim something that is overtly false (ex. you say you brought up a card when you didn't or you say your opponent dropped something they did not) it will not go well for you. Have fun this round, the best way to do well is debate (or speech) is to find what makes it fun. Let me see who you are as a debater/speaker and you will do great :)

I shouldn't have to say this but be a good human.

Any questions about my paradigm? Don't be afraid to ask :)

hey!! im eliza. dont be a bad person. have fun!! add me to ev chain/ask questions: elizasgunter@gmail.com

DEBATE:

if ur a pf sweat:

defense is NEVER sticky!!

i will listen to prog (K, T, Theory, Tricks) but dont get ur hopes up! my threshold is pretty high

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

if ur an ld sweat:

i care about the value debate! sowwy :(

be as tricky as u want i love good tech ld (NOT U PFERS)

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

if ur a policy/parli sweat:

roadmap is so essential!

send ur speech doc... before ur speech

K T Theory are more than cool I lowkey expect at least one of them

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

SPEECH:

not much to say here imo. sure, content matters, but ultimately i feel like presentation matters more.

Hello!

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

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

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

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

General stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

General for all Debate Events:

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln-Douglas:

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

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

Policy:

Please ask for specifics in round

I'm a first time judge, and I will do my best to provide constructive feedback and praise. 

Some things I look for:

Clarity. Do not assume I know anything. Speak with intention to build your points.

Preparation. There is no substitute for quality research. Being prepared with facts, evidence and citations that support your analysis and logic goes a long way toward being convincing. Also, use the time given to actively listen and construct your rebuttals.

Respect. Active listening, speaking at a reasonable pace and engaging the judges and your opponent in a respective way to bring out the most discovery and collaboration in the debate is a skill worth mastering.

Most of all: have fun and let's enjoy this experience.

EMAIL CHAIN: mavsdebate@gmail.com

Name

Please do not call me judge - Henderson - no Mr/Ms just Henderson. This is what I am most comfortable with. I will do my best to offer you the same consideration.

Doc Sharing

Please share speech docs with me, your opponent in a timely manner. If it get long, your speaks drop.

Speed

I am old - likely 10 years older than you think if not more - this impacts debaters in two ways 1. I get the more triggered when someone spreads unnecessarily. If you are using speed to increase clash - awesome! If you are using it to outspread your opponent then I am not your judge. I can understand for the AC but I think a pre-round conversation with your opponent is both helpful and something as a community we should attempt to do at all time. If you do not adjust or adapt accordingly I will give you the lowest speech possible. If this is a local, I am likely to vote against you - TOC/State - you will likely get the ballot but again lowest speaks possible. 2. I just cannot keep up as well anymore and I refuse to flow off a doc. I only have four functional fingers on one hand and both hands likely 65% what they used to be. This is especially true as the season moves along and at any tournament where I judge lot of rounds.

General Principle

I am an educator first. This means that I am concerned about the what happens in the debate more than I do about what the debate claims to achieve. This does not lessen my focus on argumentation, rather it is to say that I am sensitive to the issues that concern the debaters as individuals before I am my concern about various claimed link stories. Be honest, fair and considerate to each other. This manifests itself in my judging when I pay particular attention to the division of prep time. Debater who try to steal prep or are not considerate of their opponents prep will irritate me quickly (read: very bad speaks).

Speaker Points

This is a common question given I tend to be critical on points. Basically, If you deserve to break then you should be getting no less than a 28.5. Speaker points are about speaking up to the point that I can understand your spread/read. Do not docbot. If you do not intonate you are not debating you are reading and that is just frustrating to me. Beyond that there are mostly about argumentation. Argumentation includes strategy, crystallization, and structuring of speeches. If you have a creative strat you will do well. If you are reading generics you will do less well. If you tell a full story on the implication of your strat you will do well. If I have to read cards to figure out what you are advocating you will not. If you collapse well and convene the method and meaning of your approach you will do well. If you go for everything (neg) or a small trick you will not. Finally, if you ask specific questions about how I might feel about your strat you will do well. If you ask, "What's your paradigm?" because you did not take the time to look you will not. Previously, I had a no speaker point disclosure rule. I have changed. So ask, if you care to talk about why; not if you do not want to discuss the reasoning, but only want the number.

Policy

Theory

I truly like a good theory debate. I went for T often as a debater and typically ran quasi topical cases so that I could engage in theory debates. This being said, what you read should be related to the topic. If the words of the topic do not occur in what you read you are in an uphill battle, unless you have a true justification as to why. I am very persuaded that we should learn about certain topics outside of the debate topic, but that just means you should create a forum or propose a topic to the NSDA, or create a book club. Typical theory questions: Reasonability is defense, competing interps are offense. Some spec is generally encouraged to increase clash and more nuance, too much should be debated. Disclosure theory is not very persuasive too me, unless debated very well and should only be used after you sought to have an actual conversation with your opponent prior to the debate. I am very persuaded by contact info at national tournaments - put up contact info and any accomodations you need - it makes for a safer space.

Kritiks

A kritik is a disad with a counterplan, typically to me. This means I should understand the link, the impact and the alternative as much as I would if you read a disad and counterplan. I vote against kritik most often because I have no idea what the alt does. This happens when the aff fails to engage and you think that you now just need to extend tags on the alt and assume that is enough. I need a clear picture of the link and the alt most importantly regardless of how much the aff has engaged or not. Gut check is a real thing. If your kritik is death good you are working uphill. If you are reading "high theory" know that I have not read the literature, but I will do my best. In the 1890s, when I debated, I was really into Cap and Gender based positions. My debaters like Deleuze and Cap (probably my influence, if I possession such).

Performance/Pre-Fiat

If you are trying to convince me that what you are doing matters and can change people in some way I really need to know how. If your claim is simply that this method is more approachable, well that is generally not true to me and given there is only audiences beyond me in elim.s you are really working up hill. Access trumps all! If you do not make the method clear you are not doing well. If your method somehow interrogates something, what does it interrogate? how does that change things for us and why is that meaningful? And most important you should be initiating this interrogation in round. Tell me that people outside the debate space should do this is not an interrogation. That is just a plan with a specific mechanism. Pre-fiat claims are fine, but again I need to understand the implication. Telling me that I read gender discrimination arguments and thus that is a pre-fiat voter is not only not persuasive it is not an argument at all. Please know that I truly love a good method debate, I do not enjoy people who present methods that are not explicit and full of nothing but buzzwords.

Competition

Arguments should be competitive otherwise they are just FYI. This means kritikal argument should likely be doing more than simply reading a topic link and moving on. All forms are perms are testable - I do not default to a view on severance/intrinsic - it's all debatable. I do default on perms do a test of competition. If you want to advocate the perm this should be clear from the get. A perm should have a text, and a net benefit in the opening delivery otherwise it is a warrantless argument.

Condo

In policy, (LD its all debatable) a few layers are fine - 4+ you are testing the limits and a persuasive condo bad argument is something I would listen to for sure. What I am absolute about is the default. All advocacy are unconditional unless you state in your speech otherwise. No this is not a CX question. You should be saying, I present the following conditional CP or the like, explicitly. Not doing this and then attempting to kick it means an advocacy shift and is thus debatable on theory.

Lincoln Douglas

See above

Theory - FOR LD

I note above that I cannot keep up as much anymore. If your approach is to spam theory (which is increasing a norm in LD) I am not capable of making coherent decisions. I will likely be behind on the flow. I am trying to conceptualize your last blip in a manner to flow and you are making the 3rd or 4th. Then I try to play catch up, but argument is in the wrong place on the flow and it is written as a partial argument. I am not against theory - I loved theory as a debater, but your best approach is to go for a couple shell at most in the NC and likely no more than 1 in the 1AR if you want me to be in the game at all. This is not to say I would not vote on potential abuse/norm setting rather keep your theory to something you want to debate and not using it just a strategic gamesmanship is best approach if you want a coherent RFD.

Disads/CPs/NCs

I was a policy debater, so disads and counterplans are perfectly acceptable and generally denote good strat (read: better speaks). This does not means a solid NC is not just as acceptable, but an NC that you read every debate for every case that does not offer real clash or nuance will make me want to take a nap. PIC are debatable, but I default to say they are acceptable. Utopian fiat is generally not without a clear method story. Politics disad seem mostly silly in LD without an explicit agent announcement by the AC. If you do not read a perm against a counterplan I will be very confused (read: bad speaks). If you do not read uniqueness then your link turns are just defense.

Philosophy/Framework Debate

I really enjoy good framework debate, but I really despise bad framework debate. If you know what a normative ethic is and how to explain it and how to explain your philosophical basis, awesome. If that is uncomfortable language default to larp. Please, avoid cliche descriptors. I like good framework debate but I am not as versed on every philosophy that you might be and there is inevitable coded language within those scholarship fields that might be unfamiliar to me. Most importantly, if you are into phil debating do it well. Bad phil debates are painful to me (read: bad speaks). Finally, a traditional framework should have a value (something awesome) and a value criteria/standard (something to weigh or test the achievement of the value). Values do not have much function, whereas standards/criterion have a significant function and place. These should be far more than a single word or phrase that come with justification.

Public Forum

I have very frustrated feeling about PF as a form of debate. Thus, I see my judging position as one of two things.

1. Debate

If this is a debate event then I will evaluate the requirements of clash and the burden of rejoinder. Arguments must have a claim and warrant as a minimum, otherwise it is just an assertion and equal to any other assertion. If it is an argument then evidence based proof where evidence is read from a qualified sources is ideal. Unqualified but published evidence would follow and a summary of someone's words without reading from them would be equal to you saying it. When any of these presentation of arguments fails to have a warrant in the final focus it would again be an assertion and equal to all other assertions.

2. Speech

If neither debate team adheres to any discernible standard of argumentation then I will evaluate the round as a speaking event similar to extemp. The content of what you say is important in the sense that it should be on face logical and follow basic rules of logic, but equally your poise, vocal variation and rhetorical skills will be considered. To be clear, sharing doc.s would allow me to obviously discern your approach. Beyond this clear discernible moment I will do my best to continue to consider the round in my manners until I reach the point where I realize that both teams are assume that their claims, summaries etc... are equally important as any substantiated evidence read. The team that distinguishes that they are taking one approach and the opponent is not is always best. I will always to default to evaluate the round as debate in these situation as that is were I have the capacity to be a better critic and could provide the best educational feedback.

If you adhering to a debate model as described above these are other notes of clarity.

Theory

I’m very resistant to theory debates in Public Forum. However, if you can prove in round abuse and you feel that going for a procedural position is your best path to the ballot I will flow it. Contrary to my paradigm for LD, I default to reasonability in PF.

Framework

I think the function of framework is to determine what sort of arguments take precedence when deciding the round. To be clear, a team won’t win the debate exclusively by winning framework, but they can pick up by winning framework and winning a piece of offense that has the best link to the established framework. Absent framework from either side, I default utilitarianism.

Finally Word for All

I am sure this is filled with error, as I am. I am sure this leaves more questions than answers, life has. I will do my best, as like you I care.

for email chain use:shoffm18@icloud.com

Short Version

LD: run prog but don't run T, tricks, or non topical stuff, spread only if you're clear ab it

PF/Policy: Treat me as a parent judge who knows impact weighing and prog

Long Version

Debate

FOR ALL DEBATERS: tech > truth

LD- LD is what I do so I'm pretty comfy of you running anything.

If you don't have strong links to your impacts or args in general I will not vote for you.

Run prog if you want to, I'm usually chill with people running it if you run it well. I am not a fan of tricks it usually is not a fun debate to watch, be in, or judge so I will honestly drop you if you try to run it; they're not worth it in my opinion.

If you spread make sure you're clear

PF and Policy- I haven't done PF or Policy, so I only know the basics. I've only judged one PF round in my entire life and I haven't judged policy at all. I am literally cringing while writing this out but treat me as a parent judge who knows how to actually do impact weighing and prog

Congress- I have done Congress numerous times, please keep your speeches organized and WEIGH IMPACTS!!! I LOVE aggressive questioning blocks if it's direct- you will get placed higher or if not placed higher, have higher speaks

I will always put the PO pretty high if they are productive, organized, and keep the session running smoothly.

Y'ALL, I AM ALWAYS READY UNLESS I TELL YOU DIFFERENT! I hate when people want me to give them weird hand motions (butterflies, hearts, etc) it's so weird and unnecessary like dawg be so fr with me right now

This is DEBATE CATEGORY I don't want an organized socratic seminar.

Progressive Args

T/Theory- Tbh I don't like theory, unless there's a true violation (racism, homophobia, sexism, etc). They never persuade my decision at all and they never lead to anything important. Don't run disclosure theory if you're from a big school against someone from a little school. It's just a cheap way to win a round. Dawg, you are a good debater, you should be able to beat any case- regardless if you have their case beforehand.

K/Kritiks and K affs- I like them when they are ran well. If you go into the K like I have background info, the links are usually pretty weak and, I have to put more work into making those connections for you. Again, I'm fine with them u just gotta run them well.

CP/Counter Plans and Plantexts: Go right ahead I usually have no issue with them, you need to just have a solid DA or provide a reasoning and link for the CP or plantext to exist.

Phil- If you are the 5% that runs phil well, go right ahead. For the other 95%, I don't like phil. Like yes, it makes sense, but the majority who use it assume that everyone knows what that phil is talking about and not everyone does, or they cherry-pick what they want to use and that's just another violation within itself :/

For Everyone:

I am always ready unless I tell you different

It's insanely hard for me to give you perfect scores for speaker points unless your speech or speeches were the definition of perfection. For debate, assume I'll score you somewhere in between 26.5 through 29.5 and speech I'll probably give you a 4 or a 5.

It's insane that I have to be writing this but I will NOT allow any belittling or prejudice in ANY round or in ANY form (homophobia, racism, sexism, etc.).

If I find out about any actions that exclude members (specifically students from little schools) from the pool before the tournament starts, or if I witness the effects on them, I will report you to tab for an equity violation. Being from a small school, it's insanely classist and encourages these barriers that this activity is trying to break down. Don't deny that this happens (we all know it happens and it's super obvious in rounds).

As members of an activity that is supposed to give an equal voice to all, upholding these behaviors that have been happening for years and years is insanely rude and disappointing. Hold each other accountable.

Overall, have fun (this is supposed to be a fun activity) and I'm excited to judge you!

Hey y'all! I'm Shreya and I did L.D for five years from Valley High School. I qualified to the TOC and NSDA nationals multiple times and am able to judge both circuit and traditional debate. As a debater, I primarily went for phil or K's, but also went for theory and T a decent amount too.

As a heads up, I don't flow off the doc. For the initial speeches, I'll give you a bit more leeway but if in the rebuttal speeches, you're flying through blips, don't send the analytics, and I don't catch an argument on my flow I won't vote on it. If for example, the 1AR makes a new eval after the 1AR claim and the 2AR collapses on it, even if was conceded, I won't vote there if I didn't hear it.

Add me on the email chain shreya.ananya5@gmail.com

This is a quick paradigm for Blake

I like to think that I am a pretty tab judge. I can evaluate phil, K's, theory, T, tricks (not all tricks but most), and LARP to a lesser degree.

If you have me for a performance v performance debate or a LARP v LARP debate, I'm probably not your best bet. If by the end of the debate, I have to read the evidence and intervene, something went wrong.

If an argument is conceded, but I can't articulate what it means, what the warrant is, or how it affirms/negates, I will not vote on it.

Other miscellaneous notes

Please be comprehensible

I will say slow and clear

I won't vote on eval after the 1AC or 1N

I pay attention to CX

Things that will make me sad and potentially you sad as well

1. Being mean/sketchy in CX to novices or inexperienced debaters
2. Choosing to read only off the doc for rebuttal speeches (I think inventing new arguments on your feet is a good skill to cultivate)
3. Reading an unreasonable amount of offs instead of engaging with the AC
4. Headache inducing underviews
5. Not weighing or going for new arguments in the rebuttal speeches

Please collapse in rebuttal speeches and tell me how to vote. Judge instruction makes life easier for everyone. Your rebuttals should sound a lot like my ballot. Collapse and isolate a layer, explain why you're winning that layer, and why you outweigh your opponent.

This paradigm is for lay debate but applies to circuit debate too

I'm willing to vote on any argument insofar as it is warranted and not offensive. Here's the best explanation of how I'll judge lay debate.

First, I'll look to who's winning the value/criterion debate. If one debater is winning an entire contention and its impact (ex; nuclear war) but isn't winning that consequences matter than I won't look to that offense.

Second, I'll look to who's extending their contentions or arguments throughout the round. If the 1AR drops a really good argument and then brings it back up in the 2AR I won't vote on it.

Third, I won't evaluate new arguments made in the 2AR or completely new arguments in the 2NR because that isn't fair to your opponent, they don't have a full opportunity to respond.

Fourth, I know that persuasiveness and rhetorical choices are given great importance in lay debate and while those will definitely help if you have me as a judge, know that I ultimately vote based off the flow.

Finally, be nice! Debate can already be an exclusionary space and its important that as opponents (and judges) we work to actively make it better and that starts with being kind to your opponents.

I look forward to your debate, feel free to ask me any questions!

I LOVE DEBATE

i love voters

i love signposting

i love framework debates - remember, it decides the weighing mech i’ll use for the round. show me why your fwk is better, and how your arguments weigh under it.

Dont be mean

I’m a parent judge. Please speak clearly and slowly so I can understand and keep up. Please be respectful of one another as every student has been working hard at their cases. Please provide concrete evidence. It helps if you send your case to me so I can follow along.

Good luck in today's debate! I am a veteran Lincoln-Douglas debater from Saint James School in Montgomery, where I debated locally and nationally in high school. I was excited about debate then and still am now! After I graduated college and law school I worked for a long time as an attorney and now serve as a federal judge. Free speech and advocacy are a big part of what makes our country special, and I am thrilled that you have chosen to invest your time and talents in civil discourse.

I'm a pretty traditional judge. You can trust that I'm completely unbiased (I maintain my impartiality as part of my everyday work life), and you should not expect to win my ballot if you're not a persuasive advocate. You'll have to speak clearly and make sure that I understand your argument before you can have any expectation that I'll accept it. Spread at your own risk. If your opponent spreads, think big thoughts about how you can slow the round down and still win. In this kind of debate, the gutsy debater with a few good arguments (or even only one) is often more effective than the fastest speaker with loads of weaker things to say. Proper decorum is a must - I'm completely confident that you can be effective without being rude. Stand up straight, make eye contact, and be your best self. Good luck!

Deena R. McNamara, Esq.

Updated for Harvard 2024

Please include me on the email chain at deena.mcnamara@ahschool.com or create a SpeechDrop before the commencement of the round. If the round starts at x time, then please ensure that the doc is sent or uploaded by x time.

My Background:

I competed in LD and policy debate in high school. In college, I competed in LD and CEDA. College LD and CEDA (back in those days) were very similar to circuit LD. Debaters used T, theory and even Ks back in those dark ages of debate.

I have been a litigation attorney in excess of 26 years. I have judged LD on and off for the last 20 years. Both of my children competed in LD. Even though my kids have already graduated from college, I have remained in the community as a debate coach and judge. I have been coaching LD for American Heritage Palm Beach since 2021. I believe that debate is life changing for students of all backgrounds and abilities. I view my role as the judge not only to adjudicate your round fairly and to the best of my abilities, but to teach you something that you could do better next time to enhance your skills and arguments.

I have judged at high level competitions and in out-rounds at Harvard, Yale, Emory, Princeton, Glenbrooks, Bronx, NFL/NSDA nationals, CFL nationals, Duke, Florida Blue Key, Wake Forest and many others. I always familiarize myself with the topic literature prior to each tournament. I pay attention to every detail in the round. I can flow your case as fast as you can say it… I will keep saying clear if you are not clear. I want to hear every word that you say as it matters in the round. I take the round very seriously and I even flow CX. CX is super-important in the round, so please make sure that you are not sitting in a desk facing away from me during CX. Judges who think that CX does not matter really do not understand the purpose of debate; I will leave it at that. Additionally, I will not view your speech doc unless my hearing fails me or I am reviewing your evidence for context and accuracy. I care about your round and will do my absolute best to judge it as fairly as possible.

I try to be a tabula rasa judge; however, like everyone I do have certain dislikes and preferences.

Important:

Please do not text or message with anyone outside of the round during the round for any reason whatsoever. To be clear, you should not receive any texts, messages, emails, documents or any other form of communication whatsoever from anyone outside of the round during the round.

Case type/argument preferences:

Phil- 1

K -1

Perm with Doublebind arguments- 1

Turns on case and/or FW-1

Line-by-Line -1

Non-T Affs-2

T- 2

Disads- 2

Theory to check abuse- 3

CP- 3

Kicking arguments- 4

Contradictory case positions-5

Collpasing on an argument in last rebuttal when there is offense on other arguments in round- 5

Theory read as time suck- 5

Policy Affs/Plans/LARP- 5

FW/Phil Debate:

I love phil cases, dense phil cases, detailed frameworks with lots of philosphical warrants and well-written analytics that are interspersed in your framework. I am especially familiar with Kant, Ripstein, Korsgaard, Rand, Aristotle, Locke, Rawls, Rousseau, Hobbes, Mill, Bentham, Petit, Christiano, Moore and probably a few others that I cannot think of off the top of my head. I expect detailed frameworks and contention level arguments that link to the framework. You cannot win on FW alone, unless it has offense sufficient to affirm or negate the resolution.

Ks:

I love Ks when they are well-written. I am familiar with Agamben, Butler, Baudrillard, D & G, Foucault, Hedva, Ahmed, Wilderson, Warren, and some other authors that I have come across since I started reading these books. Just ask me and I will let you know my level of familiarity with the arguments. If you decide to run a K, then provide me the link and alternative. It is insufficient to say, "reject Capitalism" and leave me hanging as to what happens after we reject it. On the ROTB/ROTJ args, you have to make them specific; don't just tell me that you win because you minimize oppression of minorities. Who? How? Also, please weigh your arguments against your opponent's FW or ROTB/ROTJ if they provided a different one. Don't tell me things like "they keep biting into my K" as some justification you expect to win on. Seriously- I need analysis of arguments, not just blippy responses that you think qualify as extensions or arguments against your opponent's args. If you make a blippy argument, then that is how I weigh the argument in the round- minimally. I know that your time is limited in round, especially in the 1ar, so I do take that into consideration.

Plans/CPs/DAs/Perms:

I am not a fan of LARP debate. If you want to read a bunch of evidence with heavy stats and nuke war impacts, then maybe you should consider policy debate. Debaters have been reading brink arguments since the beginning of time and we are still here. If you read a Plan or Counterplan in the round, please ensure that it is suffciently developed and there is offense. Please do not read generic DAs- make sure they are relevant and specific to the argument made by your opponent. If you read a Perm then please slow down and explain it because debates get messy when these arguments are not fleshed out. When you are making arguments against a Perm, please slow down and explain your arguments clearly as to why they cannot Perm or why you outweigh on net benefits. I am not going to go back to your speech doc to figure out what you said and make the connections for you. I do love double-bind arguments and I think they are very strategic in policy debate. If you make a double-bind argument, then please slow down so I can truly enjoy the argument as you make it; I aprpeciate it.

Non-T affs, T, theory and misc.:

I am fine with non-T affs, but I think you can figure out some way to make the Aff topical so the Neg can engage in the substance of the debate. I am amenable to reasonable topicality arguments - not BS ones for time suck.I know that everyone wants to uplayer the Neg and read so many positions that the other side cannot answer; however, one of the key purposes of debate is to engage critically with the arguments made by the other debater. When the neg takes no prep time before the 1NC and says that they are sending the doc, I always question what level of engagement will occur in the 1NC if the doc was ready before the Neg even had the opportunity to question the Aff. Please do not just run a generic theory arg because you expect that I will vote on it before your opponent's case. It has to be a legit violation. You have to try to clarify in CX and CX is binding. I am fine with theory ONLY to check abuse. Again, check it in cx. I am fine with flex prep too. I am not a fan of disclosure theory because it is harder for smaller programs/lone wolf debaters to be competitive when they are prepped out by larger programs. However, I do expect varisty debaters at national competitions to email the entire Aff before reading the 1AC and the neg to email the NC that will be read prior to reading it, etc. This does not need to occur a half hour before the round unless the tournament rules say otherwise. I do expect debaters to send cases and evidence in round or to provide hard copies. If your wiki says that you will run disclosure theory if….. (insert made up rule here), then please do not expect me to vote on that. Like I said, theory is supposed to check abuse in the round. I am not voting on what happens outside the round. Also, T is different from theory. If you do not know the difference, then please do not argue with me after the round. I will explain the difference to you, but I won't engage in a lengthy debate with you on it. I get my fill of arguing in Court with pain in the a$$ attorneys. I expect you to address all of your opponent’s arguments and uphold your own in each of your speeches. No new arguments are allowed in rebuttals, but extensions and refutations of ongoing arguments are encouraged (and necessary if you would like to win!) Speaking quickly/spreading is acceptable if you slow down for the tag lines and key arguments; I will yell clear. However, your arguments need to make it onto my flow. I am a flow judge, but if I cannot understand you, then I cannot evaluate your arguments. I will have a copy of your case, but I do not want to rely on it. Communication is critical in the round. If I am reading your document, then I am not listening to you. I can read at home… I want to hear the arguments made in round.

LD as a sport:

LD is a sport. It requires hard work and endurance. You are an LDer because you choose to be. There is no other event like it in debate.

However, LD can also be toxic for some debaters who feel excluded, marginalized or bullied. Please make sure that you are courteous to your opponent. If you are debating a novice or an inexperienced varsity debater, please do not spread like you would in an out round. Try to adapt and win on the arguments. Just be kind to them so that they do not leave the event because they feel they cannot keep up. They may not have the private coaches that you do. It is tough on the circuit when you do not have the circuit experience because your school does not travel, or you do not have the funds to travel. Some debaters are in VLD, but do not have the experience that you do. If you are the better debater and have the better case, then you will win. We want to encourage all LDers because LD is truly the best event.

Please be considerate of triggers and of past experiences that your opponent may have suffered. It is not fun to judge a round where a competitor is crying or losing their cool because of something that is happening in round. No round is worth hurting someone else to win. Plus, if you act like a total d-bag and are so disrespectful that I am angry (which takes a lot to get me angry) then you will lose and be given low speaks.

Voters and what I like to vote on:

Please give me voters. It is helpful to me as the judge to see why you thought you won the round. If I think you are wrong, then I can tell you on the ballot and you will learn from it. If you are right and I agree with you, then I can use your voters in the RFD. I tend to vote on offense and who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. I do not have a strong preference of aff or neg so do not expect me to default neg. However, the aff's burden of proof is a bit more difficult. Just be clear on why you affirm or negate. Finally, I do not necessarily follow the strict "layers" of debate. So if you are curious as to what I will vote on first (in terms of theory, T, Ks, etc.), please ask me before the round. I always want debaters to be clear as to how I will evaluate the round.

Pet Peeves:

Please do not say "my opponent conceded the argument" when they really did not and please do not ask me if you can use the rest of your CX as prep. The answer is obviously “no.” Also, there are some new acronyms and phrases floating around that I am not familiar with so please ensure that you explain your arguments so I do not miss something important in your case. Lastly, please do not read off of a script. Flow and make arguments in the round; that is the fun part of debate! You do not have to send extempted analytics in the round.

Congratulations on being here! It's good to see everyone starting to do speech and debate early, it's a valuable experience that will help you for the rest of your life.

I am a tabula rasa judge and heavily value impact weighing and impact calculus, as well as strong voters speeches. Make sure to explain to me why you should win, I shouldn't have to look in my flow to try to find the winner. Having clearly structured and logical argumentation is extremely important to winning my ballot. Finally, Lincoln Douglas is a VALUE debate. Don't turn it into 1v1 Public Forum. The framework debate is important as it decides what weighing mechanism I will use to weigh the debate, so make sure to use it.

Finally, don't be mean or rude. It will automatically lose you the debate.

Most importantly, have fun! Enjoy the experience and good luck!

For email chains for cases, or any questions after the round regarding feedback, you can contact me at aryanspmishra@gmail.com .

I am a ex-HS debater with experience in all events but mainly Congress, LD, PF, extemp. I am a UIL State, TFA and 2x National qualifier. I look for a free and fair debate with clearly spoken points, confidence, and respect for peers and rules of debate. Anyone who fails to follow rules of debate can receive a lower ranking and lower speaker points.

Congress-

For speeches, since this is a mock congress it should be kept fast paced with strong speech. All points made should have a strong source to back it up. A good intro is always important to have and the way of speaking should stay professional.

For Questions, keep questions and answers short and to the point. Don't ask questions without a purpose.

For POs, Keep a fast and fair chamber. The quicker you call on speakers and questioners the better. Little to no mistakes will get you far as well. As PO, please know the rules of congress and don't be afraid to call out representatives that make mistakes, speak out of turn, abuse time, etc.

PF- Dont abuse time, have well planned arguments, good teamwork is noticed. Follow rules. spreading is okay. Final Focus should cover literally every point mentioned in the debate.

LD- Value and criterion are the foundation of this debate so once use lose those your entire case can be lost. Have well planned arguments. Attack and defend every point made. Follow rules.

Extemp- No index cards after prelims, triangle is always welcome. Speak clear and confidently, mention all points with a clear road map. sources are always important.

Don't be an ass, Don't be racist/sexist/istist, Use the Pronouns, Give Trigger Warnings, etc. etc.

richardhn2006@gmail.com - for the speech doc but speechdrop.net works

Hello I'm Richard I've debated for 3 years in highschool LD. I've done traditional and progressive debate throughout those 3 years and feel comfortable evaluating either.

Silver Talon

TLDR - I lean towards who is winning the flow the most in my decision. Whatever framing/ROTB/whatever is most convincing will filter what impacts I look towards on the flow. Whichever impacts are best warranted/applied/weighed under the FW will be the ones that likely win the round. Lastly, giving succinct crystallization in your last speech, like literally starting the speech off with, " We win because _____, ______, and ______ here's why," is very persuasive to me. Telling me where you want me to focus and giving clear judge instruction is easier for me to evaluate than jumping directly into the flow. If u do this and your opponent doesn't, then u likely gucci. This is still to say that your speaking style, body language, passion, and overall belief in what you're saying (or shouting), are still very important in influencing my decision.

LD************************* Stuff

Arguments I feel comfortable evaluating

Traditional/Stock arguments - Util, Structural Violence,

Ks - run of the mill Cap Ks, MMM, Set Col, Orientalism, Nietzsche, Biopower. It's more convincing if the alt is properly explained, cause if I don't know what the neg do? Then that's a bruh moment and I have no idea what I'd be voting on.

KAffs - They're pretty cool. It's more convincing to me if there's reasons to reject the topic and arguments about why the KAFF is necessary and would have material spillover/is on net preferable to normal fiat debate.

TFW - It's pretty cool. Maybe not as cool as a KAff. It's more convincing if the arguments are offensive and speak in the benefit of those running KAffs. For example, appealing to reasons for why procedural fairness can be beneficial for anti-whatever movements are more convincing to me than saying you can't do the aff cause debate needs fairness.

Phil - Kant, Rawls, Butler, Virtue Ethics, Hobbes. It's more convincing if you don't rely on just the case, cards, or evidence of the framing to win. Understanding the FW well and more importantly being able to explain it to me well is awesome sauce.

Policy - DAs, Advantages, Advantage CPs, Plan Texts, Most Impact Turns

Theory - Disclosure, Speed Theory, most of it is fine

Ehh?

High Theory Ks - Baudrillard, Bataille, Muñoz, etc.

CPs - Everything that's not an advantage CP

Theory - CP Theory, Call out Theory,

Arguments that I don't like

Tricks - 1-2 can be funny, ---------------- don't make the joke too long

Frivolous Theory - 1 funny shell can be funny, but ^^^^^^^^

If I haven't mentioned a specific argument/lit base, please ask

Anything is fine as long as the explanation is good enough, but I either will not or can not do that explanation work for you (even with lit I understand).

Truth/Tech

Tech>Truth? I guess - I evaluate everything said, if something isn't extended then I likely cannot vote off of it. If my personal opinion differs from what's said, unless you did something that makes me look like >:( , then I'll try my best to not let my personal opinion affect how I vote. However, I do think there are some things that are obviously true or obviously false to most people. Some things like climate change is bad, nuclear war is bad, and that the universe is likely not a hologram. I also tend to believe that most debaters running these arguments also do not believe in them and that's fine. Therefore, I do have a lower threshold for debaters answering these types of arguments. If a debater is running something that is well warranted both in and out of round, clearly passionate and believes in their argument and can explain it well, then there is a higher threshold for answering those arguments. For example, if a tricks debater has one unanswered blippy trick that gives some dumb argument about why they autowin and is in no way addressed/looked at/or thought about then I guess I give them the autowin. But if you answer that trick with like literally anything then I'm probably not gonna buy the autowin.

Speed

Speed - is fine - clarity is necessary. If 1 = my first novice round and 10 = policy TOC finals, I'm comfortable evaluating 7/10 on speed.

I like the traditional way of LD debate. Meaning, keep to your values and how your criterion and evidence uphold these values. Argumentation is key but making sure that your argumentation is not only evidence, because if your value is not being held up within this argumentation, the line of argument will be lost for me. Speech is also very important to me, keep a good moderate speed with your speech and make sure you are clear. Although I am good with speed, the way you speak will be a weigh within my decision. Finally, respect is key. I like assertiveness, but if you are rude and degrading in any of your speeches you can expect me not to vote in your favor. Have fun and good luck.

shaniaraimer@gmail.com for cases/cards

A few things:

• Speaking fast is perfectly fine, but please don't spread :)
• I'll vote however you tell me to, so hit your framework/V/VC at the top of every speech & often
• Impact arguments out
• Run anything you want so long as there's a claim/warrant/impact
• Have fun!

General Info:

Please speak clearly. Speed is fine, but if I can't understand you then I won't flow your arguments.

I judge mainly off the flow. If an argument has no evidence backing it, I won't put it on the flow. Try not to drop arguments, if you do, tell me so I don't count it against you. TELL ME where to put your attacks on the flow, rather than giving generalized arguments.

GIVE ME VOTERS PLEASE

Don't be rude. Take a breath, it's just a debate, no need to lose it. I WILL mark speaks down if you're rude.

????LD????

V/C Debate is VERY important. I will use them as a way to weigh the strength of your arguments. If you win the V/C Debate, there's a high chance you will win the round. If your case has no relation to your V/C, I won't be able to weigh your case.

I'm fine with pretty much any argument, just link it well to the topic and to morality. Impacts are necessary, tell me why your side has a greater sense of morality, tell me how people are affected, and hype up the DRAMA.

Don't focus too much on small impact arguments, the bigger the impact, the bigger the weight it has on my decision.

Please use Impact Calc in your voters.

????PF????

I like to see a strong framework, it makes my job much easier.

Provide relevant evidence, with good links to arguments. If you spout off cards with no explanation, I won't even consider it, I need a proper link.

????CX????

For spreaders: Slow down on taglines so I can get everything on the flow.

Any arguments are fine, just tell me why they apply.

Again, card stacking is not my fave, and if there is no link to why they apply, I do not care about them.

????CONGRESS????

I love some ON TOPIC humor at times. Feel free to make the round as interesting as you want.

Respect is paramount.

I mark speeches high if they:

1. Fill time.
2. Bring up new facts.
3. Respond to other speeches.

????????????

If you have any questions feel free to ask :)

Hi, I'm Allyson Spurlock (people also call me Bunny)

She/Her

allysonspurlock22@gmail.com

I did policy debate for 4 years at CK McClatchy High School in Sacramento, CA where I qualified to the TOC three times and was a Quarterfinalist. I currently coach LD for Harker.

I will diligently flow the debate, read the relevant evidence flagged by the final rebuttals, and assign relative weight to arguments (which originate completely/clearly from the constructives) in accordance with depth of explanation, explicit response to refutations, and instruction in how I should evaluate them.

I have few non-obvious preferences or opinions (obviously, be a respectful and kind person, read qualified/well-cut + highlighted evidence, make smart strategic choices, etc).

I have thought a lot about both critical and policy arguments and honestly do not think you should pref me a certain way because of the kinds of arguments you make (HOW you make them is pretty much all I care about). Judge instruction is paramount; tell me how to read evidence, frame warrants, compare impacts, etc.

Evidence quality matters a lot to me, but your speeches need to do the work of extending/applying specific warrants. Condo is probably good, but many CPs I think can be won are theoretically illegitimate/easily go away with smart perms. Debating the risks of internal links of Advs and DAs is much more useful than reading generic impact defense.

Framework debates:

Different approaches (on both sides) are all fine, as long as you answer the important questions. Does debate change our subjectivity? What is the role of negation and rejoinder? What does the ballot do? Fairness can be an impact but the 2NR still needs to do good impact calculus/comparison.

Policy Aff v K:

FW debates are often frustratingly unresolved; the final rebuttal should synthesize arguments and explain their implications. Because of this, it is often a cleaner ballot for the 2NR to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without winning framework. 2ACs should spend more time on the alt; most are bad and it is very important to decisively win that the Neg cannot access your offense.

Misc:

+0.2 speaker points if you don't ask for a marked doc after the speech

Hello! My name is Ria, and I've been doing LD debate for the past four years, graduating this year.

I prefer that you extend your arguments and explain why your arguments outweigh your opponents'. I think it's strategic to explain both how you are winning offense under your framework, as well as your opponents'.

If you have any questions about my judging preferences, please feel free to ask before the round. Good luck, and have fun!

Things that can cost you the round/things to avoid:  disrespectful behavior; condescension; non-topical arguments.

Framework: LD is a value debate. I will therefore determine whether to affirm or negate the Resolution based on how well your case upholds the value metric - value + value criterion. All else flows from here.

Case Structure: I expect a value, value criterion, and contentions. Observations are optional but if they are helpful, they are appreciated. Contentions should contain evidentiary warrants and clear impacts. I expect them to link back to your value and value criterion - I should not have to scrutinize my flow to figure out how your contentions are connected to the value metric. 

Spreading: I appreciate that spreading is increasingly common in LD and I do not penalize competitors for engaging in the practice. That said, I expect everything to be well articulated and understandable. Persuasive argument stops the moment you value speed over comprehension. I expect clean and clear signposting throughout your case, particularly if you are engaging in spreading.

Flowing: I flow every case, and base my decision based on the flow. I appreciate that competitors may share their cases with each other and that this is increasingly common practice. However, my decision will be based on what happens in the round, not on the documents provided for my reading leisure.

Time: Please feel free to time yourselves. I am also happy to time y'all if you would prefer.

RFD: This will always come back to who fulfills the value metric best. I will also note that I personally put great emphasis on cross examination and rebuttal, as these extemporaneous moments often best display skill sets and thorough knowledge of case and material.

Speech:

Your content matters as much as the way you speak. If you are not respectful to other speakers your rank will drop.

PF:

I am a flay judge and having a framework or being able to work under your opponent's framework is really good for helping me choose you to win.

I don't care about cross and will not judge off of anything during cross, if there is something said and you want me to flow it say it again in your speech.

You can speak fast but don't spread, there's a difference this isn't a varsity LD round.

If you call your opponents out for abuse for running too many contentions (ex if their case continues to 1st rebuttal) and it is a valid argument of abuse I will take that into consideration for sure.

If you have any questions let me know I'm chill and willing to help you out on anything

LD:

Spreading is not appreciated unless you are in varsity and if you are extremely content on spreading at a varsity level your opponent and myself should have access to what you are reading (unless tournament guidelines say different just lmk).

My name is Zi Wang (Zee).

I'm a parent judge. I'd prefer traditional debates over progressive and normally don't vote on tricks, Ks, theory, etc. Please don't go too fast and make your arguments clear. Make sure that you weigh and give clear voters.

Tech>Truth

Email: ziwangdebate@gmail.com

I expect all competitors to be respectful, know the rules of their format and follow the needed order of the debate. I would categorize myself as more of a traditionalist versus progressive. I would appreciate all competitors speak slowly, loud and clear AND clearly state their contentions.