Thomas Bazemore art mine name

Judging debate art my game

Speak like this the entire round

The speaker points shalt be profound

Should thou waver from the rhyme

Thy speaker points shalt drop by nine

A pencil shalt not enter my sight

If it does, I shall leave in spite

Though thy first time it shall be

An amazing debate I hope to see

For novices, while thou art new

Still must abide by NSDA Rule

You shall respect the other side

Lest you lose arguments that coincide

You shall not use profane words

Lest your disqualification be heard

Thou shalt always bring thy case

Improvising is quite the waste

Lastly I shall state MY rules

Lest you argue like a fool

Make sure thou art speaking clearly

flows and impacts I love dearly

Frameworks shalt not be necessary

But they truly help against thine adversary

Make sure thine time is within bounds

Lest I cut you off with a frown

'Tis art mine own Paradigm

Good luck Debaters! 'Tis nearly time!

Hi! I'm a freshman at UC Berkeley who has done Public Forum for 3 years and has experience in Extemp (both the speech event and debate). I've mainly competed within the Oregon circuit, but I've also competed in nat circuit tournaments and am a two-time national qualifier.

PF: I'm a firm believer that public forum should be the most accessible form of debate – this doesn't mean that I'm looking for lay debate, but if you start spreading like its policy I will be docking speaks. This also means no k and no theory, I am truth over theory. I default to cost-benefit analysis unless there's a clash over the framework, but again it's PF, so if you're clashing over the framework it better be worth it.

I don't care if you drop arguments if you tell me why the arguments still standing weigh heavier than your opponents'. I pay attention during crossfire, but if you don't flow your arguments through to your speech, I won't vote on it. Be nice, don't make it personal, and provide evidence when asked for it. I will call for cards if I have doubts. Please include me on any email chains for evidence exchange: shubhangibose@gmail.com.

I'll time speeches and will give a grace period of 10 seconds, everything after that I will disregard. I'll also time prep but I won't be super strict about it.

If you have any specific questions about my paradigms ask pre-round, I'm sure I've forgotten something here. Most importantly, have fun!

I have been a speech and debate parent for four years, and a volunteer coach for two years. I have been judging speech and public forum debate for four years. I am a Tufts University graduate with a Bachelor of Science in Psychology and a Wayne State University graduate with a Master's Degree in Social Work. I have been a Licensed Independent School Social Worker for 23 years working with K-12th grade students, parents and staff. I did not debate in high school or college but I have gained experience through judging and coaching. While judging, I work to provide feedback of strengths and weaknesses of individuals and teams. I look for the combination of content and presentation as well as debate etiquette and composure. I look for clash, well written rebuttal speeches, fair questioning rounds, confidence, and effective delivery. I also look for strong data and impacts to determine the winning team of the debate.

Good Luck!

Judge Paradigm: Public Forum Debate

As a judge in a Public Forum debate, my primary focus is to evaluate the debaters' abilities to effectively communicate their ideas, present logical arguments, and engage in respectful discourse. Here are the key criteria I will consider when assessing the round:

1. Clarity and Organization: I expect debaters to articulate their points clearly and concisely, using logical reasoning and evidence to support their claims. They should have a well-structured and coherent speech, ensuring that their arguments flow logically from one point to another.

2. Evidence and Analysis: Debaters should support their arguments with credible evidence, such as statistics, expert opinions, or real-world examples. I value the quality of evidence over quantity. It is important for debaters to not only present evidence but also analyze it effectively, explaining how it supports their claims and refutes their opponents' arguments.

3. Clash and Rebuttal: I encourage debaters to engage in clash by directly addressing their opponents' arguments. They should provide effective rebuttals that challenge the foundation of their opponents' claims. Debaters must be responsive to their opponents' arguments and adapt their rebuttals accordingly.

4. Speaking Style and Delivery: Debaters should demonstrate effective public speaking skills, including clear articulation, appropriate pace, vocal variation, and engaging body language. While I understand that debaters may have different levels of experience, I appreciate those who strive to improve their presentation skills and connect with the audience. Also remember, if you’re speaking too fast and I can’t understand you, I can’t give you my vote.

5. Crossfire and Collaboration: During the crossfire segment, debaters should engage in a constructive exchange of questions and answers. I expect them to ask relevant and probing questions while actively listening to their opponents' responses. Collaboration is valued, and I appreciate debaters who show a willingness to engage in respectful dialogue.

6. Respect and Decorum: Respectful behavior is essential. Debaters should avoid personal attacks, maintain a courteous demeanor, and uphold the principles of fairness and sportsmanship. I encourage a civil and respectful atmosphere throughout the debate.

7. Impact and Relevance: Debaters should explain the broader implications and significance of their arguments. They should address the impact their proposed policies or ideas would have on society, individuals, or relevant stakeholders. The arguments presented should be relevant to the topic and demonstrate an understanding of its complexities.

Ultimately, as a judge, I aim to provide constructive feedback that encourages growth and development for the debaters. I will assess their performances based on the criteria outlined above, recognizing their strengths while offering suggestions for improvement.

Hello! My name is Cameron Coen (he/him/his) and I debated at Southwest High School (in Lincoln, Nebraska) for 4 years in PF with my wonderful partner Molly O'Brien. I've competed at nationals two times and successfully secured a Prickles.

If there's an email chain please add me: cdcoen7@gmail.com

IMPORTANT STUFF: The most important thing within the debate round is the safety and inclusivity of all debaters. If you plan on running something sensitive, please have a content warning and a backup case/contention. Additionally, any hateful or blatantly racist, transphobic/homophobic, sexist, etc arguments will not be weighed in the round.

How I Evaluate a Round:

Tech----X-----Truth

Impact! Some of the best rounds are lost because teams do not impact (weighing is equally as important, make the decision for me). I will try my best to evaluate what I have on the flow, but please also convince me. I will most generally vote on an argument that has the better warranting and weighing.

If you want me to consider an argument, please carry it through all your speeches.

Theory, Ks, etc: I am not familiar with progressive arguments/theory. I would highly recommend reconsidering before running theory in front of me. I don't know/never hit a K before. You're probably better off trying to avoid having me evaluate such a round. However, I feel like I would be more sympathetic to these types of arguments if there has been a serious offense in round.

Preferences in terms of what's going on in the round:

I appreciate off-time roadmaps, but please keep them short.

If you're reading evidence, please take prep time to do so.

Rebuttal: You probably should frontline in second rebuttal interacting with any offense read in first rebuttal.

Summary: Please do not extend every single argument possible; collapse on arguments you know you're winning (refined and implicated arguments > mass card dumping). Extend your warrants specifically and give me reasons to prefer over your opponents. Don't just give me author names and expect me to know what you're talking about.

Final Focus: This speech should mirror the summary speech. Tell me why you're winning and weigh!

Cross: I don't flow cross, but if you really want to bring something from cross mention it in your speech.

If you have any further questions ask me before the round starts, find me around the tournament, or email me and I would be happy to answer them.

I coach beginners (elementary/ MS) debate, so I'm very familiar with PF, but I work on a very novice level, i.e. 3rd- 8th graders and we typically do more simple topics.

I have a basic understanding of jargon, but you're better off putting things in lay terms. I'm not good with speed, I'll zone out and not process anything you're saying, so I'd suggest speaking a smidge above conversational pace if you want me to truly take in your case. I get it if you want to speak fast to get a lot in, just be sure to repeat the main things you want me to take away to ensure I've got it. If you want to take the risk, that's up to you! :) I really don't recommend it.

I'm usually swayed by more compassionate, emotional arguments and will typically vote for the side that helps more people in a more tangible way. I like when you tell me specifically what to vote based off of.

I don't judge very often, so I definitely am not a perfect judge, but I'll do my best! PLEASE don't expect me to be a tech judge. I am not! I flow, but I miss things at times. I don't have rules about what needs to be in what speech, but obviously you can't bring up something new at the end.

I'm easily charmed by a good public speaker, and have noticed that if someone is a good speaker I'm more receptive to their arguments. I try to keep it to the content when picking a winner, but I've noticed this about myself and am not always conscious of it, so I figured it's beneficial for you to know if I'm your judge.

I always figure it's best to be polite and professional. I think it reflects better on you if you stand for your speeches and keep your own time. It's not a make or break, but you'll come off a lot better in my eyes if you do these things.

If you have a specific question, feel free to ask! :)

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain) -- if both teams are there before I am, feel free to start the email chain without me so we can get started when I get there

PLEASE title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order

Experience:

• PF Coach for Lakeville South & Lakeville North in Minnesota, 2019-Present
• Speech Coach for Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2022-Present
• Instructor for Potomac Debate Academy, 2021-Present
• University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
• Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019

I will generally vote for anything if there is a warrant, an impact, and solid comparative weighing, and as long as your evidence isn't horribly cut/fake. Every argument you want on my ballot needs to be in summary and final focus, and I will walk you through exactly how I made my decision after the round is over. I’ve noticed that while I can/will keep up with speed and evaluate technical debates, my favorite rounds are usually those that slow down a bit and go into detail about a couple of important issues. Well warranted arguments with clear impact scenarios extended using a strategic collapse are a lot better than blippy extensions. The best rounds in my opinion are the ones where summary extends one case argument with comparative weighing and whatever defense/offense on the opponent’s case is necessary.

General:

• I am generally happy to judge the debate you want to have.
• The only time you need a content warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
• I will drop you with a 20 (or lowest speaks allowed by the tournament) for bigotry or being blatantly rude to your opponents. There’s no excuse for this. This applies to you no matter how “good at technical debate” you are.
• Speed is probably okay as long as you explain your arguments instead of just rattling off claims. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. Sending a doc is not an excuse to go fast beyond comprehension - I do not look at speech docs until after the round and only if absolutely necessary to check
• Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.

Evidence Issues:

• Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards are the only way to present evidence in my opinion. At the very least, read direct quotes.
• Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that you don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
• Evidence should be sent in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
• The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
• Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
• My threshold for voting on arguments that rely on paraphrased/power-tagged evidence is very high. I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
• I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
• You have to take prep time to "compile the doc" lol you don't just get to take a bunch of extra prep time to put together the rebuttal doc you're going to send.

Speech Preferences:

• Frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
• Defense isn't sticky. Anything you want to matter in the round needs to be in summary and final focus.
• Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
• Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is cool too. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
• Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
• The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
• I generally enjoy and will vote on extinction impacts, but I'm not going to vote on an argument that doesn't have an internal link just because the impact is scary - I'm very much not a fan of war scenarios read by teams that are unable to defend a specific scenario/actor/conflict spiral.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates. I generally find theory debates very boring. But if you decide to ignore that and do it anyway, please at least read this:

• Frivolous theory is bad. I generally believe that the only theory debates worth having are disclosure and paraphrasing, and even then, I really do not want to listen to a debate about what specific type of disclosure is best.
• I probably should tell you that I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
• Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
• "Theory is bad" or "theory doesn't belong in PF" are not arguments I'm very sympathetic to.
• I will say that despite all the above preferences/thoughts on theory, I really dislike when teams read theory as an easy path to ballot to basically "gotcha" teams that have probably never heard of disclosure or had a theory debate before. I honestly think it's the laziest strategy to use in those rounds, and your speaker points will reflect that. I have given and will continue to give low point wins for this if it is obvious to me that this is what you're trying to do.

Kritiks:

I have a high threshold for critical arguments in PF because I just don’t think the speech times are long enough for them to be good, but there are a few things that will make me feel better about voting on these arguments.

• I often find myself feeling a little out of my depth in K rounds, partly because I am not super well versed on most K lit but also because many teams seem to assume judges understand a lot more about their argument than they actually do. The issue I run into with many of these debates is when debaters extend tags rather than warrants which leaves the round feeling messy and difficult to evaluate. If you want to read a kritik in front of me, go ahead, but I'd do it at your own risk. If you do, definitely err on the side of over-explaining your arguments. I like to fully understand what the world of the kritik looks like before I vote for it.
• Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself. Probably don't just take something from the policy wiki without recutting any of the evidence or actually taking the time to fully understand the arguments.
• I think theory is the most boring way to answer a kritik. I'll always prefer for teams to engage with the kritik on some level.
• I will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical.

Pet Peeves:

• Paraphrasing.
• I hate long evidence exchanges. I already ranted about this at the top of my paradigm because it is by far my biggest pet peeve, but here’s another reminder that it should not take you more than 30 seconds to send a piece of evidence. There’s also no reason to not just send full speech docs to prevent these evidence exchanges, so just do that.
• I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and potentially drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
• Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
• The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point.
• The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
• If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school, and I've judged/coached it a little since then. I dislike judging it because no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

• I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the fourth/fifth/sixth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker or answering an attack the opposition made against your side.
• I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery.
• If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill. It is much less important to me that you speak on every bill than it is that when you do speak you alter the debate on that bill.

If you have additional questions, ask before or after the round or you can email me at madelyncook23@gmail.com.

hi! my name is ellie. i’ve competed in extemp/impromptu for two years and public forum for two years— i’m knowledgeable on most topics so please keep that in mind/stay realistic and emphasize impacts. i’m relatively traditional/anti-spreading and won’t vote on prog concepts (k’s, theory, etc)— in other words, please keep PF the accessible debate that it’s meant to be. personally, i value good + clear speaking. i don’t usually call for evidence (if i do, i’d prefer that you just show it to me). I really appreciate evidence usage, but still require good arguments for you to win. as far as the actual debate, please keep args relevant and be nice (!!!!) as i will dock points for condescending and/or rude behavior. i don’t need any off time roadmaps but signposting in the speech is important. good luck! :)

FOR NOVICE STATES PF: I have been doing ld/pf for 3 years now on the nat circuit and have experience with most types of arguments. I do not care what you run but it needs to have a warrant behind it. If you're new to tech args and want to know if you can run them, you can, and I would encourage you to cause I don't want to judge trad rounds the whole tournament. Don't be racist, sexist, or just mean in general Kritiks - 1

T/Theory - 1

Policy v K – 2

Policy v Policy - 4

Phil - 5 (not very experienced with this)

Tricks - 3 (if I don't catch it it's on u) Here are my defaults but keep in mind they can be changed with a single line so they aren't rules: ROB > Theory
- Fairness > Education

- No RVI, Competing Interps, DTD

- Comparative Worlds

- Presumption Affirms, Permissibility Negates I'll give 28.5 for an average speech, +/- 1 point depending on performance

Graduated from CK McClatchy High School in 2020. Currently debate for UC Berkeley. Conflicts: CK McClatchy, West Campus, Harker.

he/him

yes email chain please -- nick.fleming39@gmail.com

I flow straight down on my laptop.

These things suck. Everybody lies and says they are agnostic but in my experience nobody but maybe 10 people really mean it. I am not going to pretend like I don't have preferences and won't internally eye-roll and react negatively to certain arguments, but I will try my absolute hardest to stick to my flow (with the exception of the arguments clearly identified in this paradigm as non-starters).

That in mind, here is my general approach to judging and some preferences:

I was largely a k debater in high school but I am exclusively a policy debater in college. I feel comfortable judging both sides of the spectrum. Regardless of the issue at hand, evidence quality matters a lot to me, and I will read every card mentioned by name in the final rebuttals before making my decision.

I think I care more than other judges about judge instruction. Telling me how to read/understand cards, how to frame warrants, etc. will be taken very seriously when the debate comes to an end. Smart, strategic judge instruction and framing will quickly earn speaker points.

I believe being affirmative is fundamentally easy. Having the case and talking last is a near-insurmountable barrier between evenly matched opponents (on most topics). On those grounds, I err neg on basically all theory. This is significantly more true for policy than LD, but my instinct to resolve theory in favor of the neg will remain strong.

Most of my paradigm is about k debate because I have far less feelings about policy rounds. That is not to say I am not a good judge for them. My favorite debates to judge are big, in-depth policy rounds that are vertically oriented and have lots of good evidence. That being said, I have far less instruction to offer you because those rounds are more straight-forward to evaluate. I will reward smart turns case arguments and clever analytics above a wall of cards in these debates.

Planless affs ---

I generally think that debates are better, more interesting, and more educational when the aff defends a topical plan based on the resolution.

I have been in many of these debates, both answering and going for topicality. My time as a k debater raised my threshold for the aff a bit because I have first hand experience with how easy it can be to beat framework with args that suck. If you are going for an impact turn to T without a counter-interpretation, you should probably win offense against model v model debates.

I like impact turns a lot. I am a good judge for heg/cap good, and a bad judge for affs that don't want to defend anything. In my opinion, if you have taken a radically leftist position and forwarded a structural kritik but are unwilling to debate the most surface level right-wing propaganda, you are both bastardizing the literature and being cowards. I will not be convinced that your indictment of settler colonialism/some other superstructure is conviently okay with whatever the neg has impact turned. Inversely, if you are a k team that is ready to throw down on these questions, I will consider you strong-willed, brave, and smart.

Skills/clash solve the case with a big external, a TVA, and a robust presumption push on case is the quickest way to my heart.

Similarly, presumption pushes against affs that are just built to impact turn T are very persuasive.

I am increasingly persuaded by the fairness paradox.

I am unpersuaded by the trend of affs being topic-adjacent and answering framework with "you could have read x DA." I believe this reflects a fundamental, novice-level misunderstanding of what topicality is.

I don't like offense that hinges on the subject position of your opponent or me as a judge. I also very strongly prefer not to be in charge of your mental health, livelihood, or identity. EDIT 11/21: have received questions about this and would like to clarify -- args about value to life, ressentiment, etc. are totally fine. I don't want be in charge of you as an individual -- meaning your role in the community, your mental health, or your sense of self.

Kritiks -

Neg - I consider myself fairly sufficient in most kritik literature and have researched extensively, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't explain your theory. I don't think its fair of me to just fill in gaps for you (for example, deciding in my own head what it means if you "win the ontology debate.") The best way to win in front of me is to have a unique link that turns the case and beats the aff without framework. If your argument is about you and contains no theory, I am a decidedly bad judge for you.

Aff - Impact turn things. Weigh the aff against the alt for more than just fairness -- see my framework thoughts for the neg above. If you are going soft left against the k that is also fine, but sounding nice and in the direction of whatever your opponents say doesn't tell me why the link doesn't turn the case.

Theory -

I am not very good at judging T debates against policy affs. I like reasonability and precision, and my record is pretty decisively aff, despite not having strong feelings about T. At least an outside chance this means I am simply not doing a very good job evaluating the debates.

Usually theory debates are pretty bad to judge because people just spread through their blocks and don't do line by line. I tend to be lenient with all neg shenanigans.

I largely think if cps compete, they are legit. I can sometimes be convinced otherwise, but if your theory argument is just "this counterplan is bad," I am going to be convinced by neg arbitrariness arguments,

All of that being said, I also think most cheat-ey cps don't compete! So if you're aff, you're not tanked -- you are just better off going for the perm than theory.

Please do not go for condo in front of me. I have no idea why the neg thinking they can kick a counterplan or an alternative is a voting issue -- simply saying conditionality is bad is not sufficient for me to nuke the other team from the debate. I have never participated in or seen a debate between competent opponents in which even the most egregious abuses of conditionality effected the decision. If the neg drops it twice, I guess you have to go for it. I can think of very few circumstances where it is a good idea otherwise. Slightly more sympathetic for LD because of 1AR time pressures, but still will lean heavily neg and will cap speaks at 29 for the aff (assuming perfect debating otherwise --- if you go for condo, you should expect your points to be in the 28-28.5 range.)

Online Debate

If my camera is not on, please assume I am not ready for you to begin speaking.

I would very much appreciate if you could record your speeches in case there are internet issues while you are talking.

Even the clearest debaters tend to be tougher to flow in an online format. I understand that this comes with some strategic cost, but I will reward you with speaks if you go a little slower than usual and make sure to be extra clear.

LD:

Edit 2/11/23

If you do not ask for a marked document in your debate, I will add .1 to your speaker points. Unless your opponent legitimately marked cards, your speaker points will be capped at 29 if you ask for one. Flow better. Asking about what was and wasn't read is CX time. Every time you ask "did you read x" that's minus .1 speaker points.

EDIT 4/10/22: adding this after judging ~120 LD debates:

1. There seem to be issues with clarity plaguing this activity. To try and discourage this, I will do the following things: a.) I will never open your documents during the debate. I will read cards after if you tell me too. b.) I will say clear 5 times, after that, I'm not flowing c.) If, on the other hand, you are clear, I will give way too high of speaks. Some of the best teams in this activity sound great -- its clearly possible to win without being unflowable.

As my record indicates, I overwhelmingly vote neg in LD debates. Usually, this is because the 1AR runs out of time and drops something important, and I feel like my hands are tied on new 2AR args. That in mind -- 1ARs that set up big framing issues, start doing impact calc, and cut out superfluous arguments in favor of barebones substance will be rewarded with speaker points and usually the ballot. Aff teams, the entire activity seems to be stacked against you -- so debate accordingly, and don't waste time on useless stuff like condo.

I am gettable on Nebel/whole rez, but don't usually find it particularly persuasive. Seems counter-intuitive.

Please go easy on the theory -- I get that its a big part of the activity, but if your plan going into the debate is to go for a theory arg, you shouldn't pref me. I am usually going to vote neg.

I am not 100% familiar with all of the LD nomenclature so I may need a little explanation of things like "upward entailment test" and other LD-specific vocab

No RVI's ever under any circumstances

running list of arguments that are simply too bad to be evaluated:

new affs bad

no neg fiat

plan focus allows you to say the n word in debates

my opponent did something outside the round that they should lose for

RVI's

Misc.

- Consider me dead inside -- moralizing and tugging on my heart strings will only earn you negative speaks - debate is not about individual feelings, and I will not consider yours when deciding your round.

- I strongly believe that you should be allowed to insert rehighlightings of evidence that has already been read in the debate if you think it goes the other way/want to add context to an argument. Please do not abuse this by inserting a million rehighlightings, but I will be hard to convince that it is not okay to do so in moderation (especially in the 1AR.)

- Please do not ask me for high speaks -- you lose half a point every time you bring it up

- I will only flow the person who's speech it is (edit: Feel less strongly about this during the 1AC/1NC)

- It is a damning indictment of our community that I even have to say this, but the debate will end immediately if it gets even remotely physical at any point. This includes touching other debaters' property. If this is any way surprising, confusing, or offensive to you, strike me.

- There is nothing more off-putting to me than debaters who take themselves too seriously. Please stop acting like this is anything other than a silly game we all want to win at.

• In that same vein, being rude does not make you cool, funny, or brave. Snarky CX comments, saying mean stuff in speeches, etc. will make me dislike you and actively hope that you lose the debate. If I think you are too rude, I will say something after the round and take pleasure in giving you bad speaks. If it gets to the point where I am saying something to you, you should assume I bombed your speaks. If you are a team that can't make your arguments without being mean to other debaters, strike me.

Public Forum (copied from Greg Achten)

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

I debated for Sioux Falls Lincoln for 4 years. I have competed on the National policy circuit during my last two years of highschool on a regular basis. I am currently the assistant coach at Lincoln Southeast high school where I coach Policy, LD, with some PF and Congress. I am most familiar and comfortable with progressive LD and more Traditional Policy; however I will listen to almost anything if it is explained and argued well.

If there is an email chain, add me: dfolkert@nebrwesleyan.edu

LD:

-I prefer contention level debate over standards debate, so any effort to consolidate the standards debate would be much preferred.

-I default to tech over truth

-I encourage creativity with K's, DA's, and CP's to be run within LD, as long as they are run correctly and give me a reason for why that type of position is justified.

Policy:

K aff vs Policy aff: When I was debating, I stuck to traditional policy debate with topical policy aff's over K affs, therefore I prefer to see that type of debate. I prefer to hear a well-warranted and thought out policy aff's over a jargon heavy K aff that provides no justification outside of "the USFG is bad" or the "structure is flawed". I understand and value the importance of an applicable K aff to the topic, but as a general principle I am more persuaded by a policy aff, especially in Nebraska when unfortunately a Policy Aff is rarer then a non-topical K aff.

DA's/ CP: I love to see a great CP and DA combo to an aff over a 1-off K in the 1NC. I feel like a good CP and DA is undervalued in policy debate currently, and would love to see them make a come back. Therefore, from a neg strategy perspective, I will find a team reading an applicable CP over a generic K (such as cap, imperialism, anti-blackness, identity politics, set col, etc.) more persuasive.

K: Again, I am not the biggest fan of 1-off K's in the 1NC, however I do believe K's have a place in a debate when in conjunction with other off-case positions. If you plan on reading a K, either A. read other off case positions such as T or DA's, or B. if you do read a 1-off K, PLEASE do case work. Show me how the K interacts with the aff by indicting the solvency of the aff with the K in the 1NC or turning it, etc. For the K itself, I prefer more pragmatic alts over vague Utopian ults. I am a fan of kicking the Alt and using the K as a linear DA.

T: I love a great T debate, as do most judges! However, key word 'great'. Reading shells in the 1NC and 2AC are fine, but after those speeches I do not want to hear shell extensions, I want to hear real analysis and comparison between your interp and your opponents. I default to competing interps over reasonability.

FW: Against K aff's, I want rather see a good FW debate over a K vs K debate. Again, I would rather see real analysis over shell extensions after the 1NC and 2AC. For me to pull the trigger on FW, I really need a TVA. As I did traditional policy debate over K debating high school, you need to go a little slower on FW and explain arguments more as I am not as familiar with them as I am with more traditional theory and T arguments.

If you have any specific questions about arguments, please ask me before round.

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!

I’m a high schooler who’s done debate since middle school :)
Respect others; any discriminatory comments will result in an auto drop and I'll contact tab

Please be nice. Debates are not fun at all to judge when people are being rude/condescending in cross and I will give you the L if you're too mean.

I'll disclose only if everyone in the round is comfortable with it. I really hate how competitive debate is, so if you don't want to hear the results, power to you and just say so!

Try to speak for the whole speech time and weigh (tell me why to prefer your impacts over your opponents') and I'll be happy

Please extend arguments!! Tell me the reasons why something happens not just that it happens, and I’m so so much more likely to vote for you. Basically, just warrant what you’re saying and extend arguments properly

Give an off-time roadmap, like "neg, aff"

I think it's my job to adapt to how y'all are debating and that's what I'll try to be doing. As long as you're erring on the side of over-explaining things which aren't problematic in any way, I'd love to vote for you! Please just debate the way you debate best in front of me

My email is Wphahn05@gmail.com if you have any questions after/before round or want to add me to the email chain

Please ask me any questions before round if you have any, and don't aggressively post-round me!

Most importantly, HAVE FUN!!!

Hi! I'm Fiona, a pf debater at Cary.

Add me on the email chain: xfionaxhux@gmail.com

Tldr: run any argument you want

General

Hate speech, bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated. Any violation of this rule will be auto 0L.

Tech > Truth

Signpost! PLEASE! It makes my life easier for flowing and easier for me to follow the round.

PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH.

Second rebuttal must frontline. Defense is NOT sticky.

If you're going to go fast, send a doc. I literally cannot flow things really fastly, I need a doc.

If you paraphrase, please provide cut cards.

Speaks depend on the tournament, but they normally start at 28.5. (Blast Lana before a round and I'll boost your speaks).

That being said, for every time you go "I will take x number of prep" I will be docking a speaker point. Just say "I'll be taking running prep" and tell me how much you use -- so much easier.

I don't flow cross, but it's binding.

I'll disclose if the tournament allows it.

Specific Arguments

Policy

Extend link chains and impacts. I can not weigh the round if I have no impacts and warranting for impacts. Also, have an internal link into your impact -- saying a pandemic will cause extinction with no warrant why will not make me happy.

Evidence clash is excessive in pf. Please just weigh or give warranting on which piece of evidence is better. I don't want to intervene and decide what piece of evidence is better, so do it for me or you might be unhappy with your result.

If there is no offense in the round, I presume neg.

I really prefer you line by line everything, if you have an overview tell me where to flow it.

Progressive Debate

I'm a better judge for K than theory.

Ks

I can evaluate both non-topical and topical Ks.

Even though I've read Ks throughout high school, I won't hack for Ks. I'm perfectly fine with voting off of T, extinction outweighs, or anything else that's won on the flow.

The current state of K-affs is far too polarized. There seems to be a common expectation of literal perfection within a K team's advocacy in and out of round. I don't think it should be a sacred argument and this treatment of Ks as sacred deters minority debaters from running identity Ks in the first place.

If you are reading a K, explain your theory of power well, and make implications of why it matters.

Theory

I default to competing interps, no RVIs, DTD.

RVIs need warrants. If they don't have warrants, they are going to lose.

I'm not a fan of TW theory, I think it's used as a cop-out to not talk about non-graphic social issues. That being said, I won't hack against it.

Disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad. Again, I won't hack for either disclosure or paraphrasing theory.

Tricks

I don't get tricks, so run them at your own risk.

I am on the WKU Forensics Team. I do LD and IPDA. I will vote on topicality (LD) and on definitions (IPDA)-as long as not abusive. I’m not the biggest fan of Ks. I won’t vote down because of them and will consider them fairly, but I don’t like them. If you have difficulty with spreading, let me and your opponent know. Debate should be accessible to all. If you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent, I will give you low speaking points. I’m not picky on CPs or low probability DAs (it’s the opponents job to bring up probability). I will not do the work for you. My main goal is to make the rounds fun, educational, and welcoming!

In all debates, I look for two things:

~ Effectiveness of Arguments: are your points supported effectively? I will do my best to take flow notes on all arguments, but I also can't catch everything. I will use my own flow to determine who won in each argument throughout the debate.

~ Delivery of Arguments: are your points and arguments delivered effectively? Can I as the judge actively see and follow your points throughout the debate?

Whichever team is best in both scenarios will win the debate.

No spreading

Tech judge. Run whatever you want - I will vote off of the flow. I have topic knowledge. Be clear. Weigh.

Be nice but assertive in cross - I don’t flow cross but concessions are binding.

EXTEND CASE in summary and final focus or I can't vote on it. If I can't vote on case I will find something random to vote on and chances are you won't like it. Also frontline case in 2nd rebuttal.

Most importantly, tell me WHY I am voting for you in this round. Tell me why cancelling student loans is good/bad, why this is true, why you are winning it, why it is important.

Good luck and have fun!

add me to the email chain: adamlevin71@gmail.com and caryjldebate@gmail.com

You can put me on the email chain : stormeebryemassey@gmail.com

NOTE- I do not look at your speech doc during round- I only ask to be on the chain in case I need to view cards after round. Please do NOT assume that because something is in your doc, it was flowed.

Team Involvement:

Coaching Experience:

Head Coach of US Debate Formats for Vancouver Debate Academy (BC)

Former Director of Debate at Grapevine HS and Trinity HS in TX.

I have over 7 years of experience coaching competitive speech and debate.

Competitive Experience:

College: University of Oklahoma Class of 14'

HS: Flower Mound High School 09'

Background in Events: I did Policy debate for 9 years (4 at Flower Mound High School; 5 at OU)- I was a big K debater.

I have coached students in CNDF, BP, Policy, LD, Congress, WSD, and Public Forum.

I currently coach Public Forum Debate, WSD, CNDF, and BP.

PF [Updated for Stanford 1/9/24]

Here are my top five suggestions if you have me in a PF round:

1. Be organized- I keep a clean flow (I was a policy debater for a long time and have judged on a collegiate level). Do not say your opponent missed something unless you are 100% positive.

2. Have evidence readily available- I evaluate a lot of your credibility in context of your evidence. If evidence is paraphrased poorly, is out of context, is not easily accessible, or is clipped- your team will lose points with me. Debate with integrity :)

3. Crossfire with care- Try to drive crossfire with questions and strategy- I am not a fan of back and forth arguments/tiffs during crossfire. Avoid being aggressive, please. I do pay attention to crossfire.

4. I am a gameboard judge (tech over truth- barring offensive argumentation that is racist, sexist, etc.). - if you concede an offensive argument- that is potential offense for your opponent. If your opponent concedes an argument- point it out and extend it. I will almost always evaluate tech over truth if spin is not addressed directly.

5. I am not likely to vote on frivolous arbitrary theory- if you read an argument that your opponent should lose because they didn't do some arbitrary thing like putting their phone number on the wiki- I will not likely vote for you and will likely want to vote against you. For me to vote on theory- you have to prove in-round abuse. However, if your opponent concedes the theory, I will vote on it- I will just be very sad.

As a judge, I would like to tell you my experience I have been debating for 4 years and have experience in all events of debate and know a lot of what to look for in a speech. Regarding debate, I am comfortable with speed as long as I can still understand what you are saying. As an impact judge, I will be looking for the why in your arguments. If I can't understand why it matters then I most likely won't vote for you. To be as fair as possible I will be entering every round with a clear mind and no personal input into the arguments made. They can be as weird or outlandish as possible as long as there is a clear impact and if your opponent doesn't contest it I will consider it in the round as true and a reason to vote on. I look forward to the rounds. Good luck!

Experienced 4 year PF and LD debater. Planning to compete in IPDA at Ohio University in the fall.

I can manage speed, but do not spread if you trip over your words while doing it. I tend not to believe K's or theory. In both categories, I prefer off-time roadmaps to organize my flow. Good eye contact is appreciated.

PF specific: Please have carded evidence for claims. Simply providing a number or impact with no source will not fly. In CX, keep your questions and responses short and to the point. Clear weighing will dictate my vote.

LD specific: I am a lover of Framework debate. Winning the FW is crucial to my ballot. Logic based warranting is acceptable so long as it is consistent.

I am a parent judge of a 7th and 9th grader at American Heritage school in Palm Beach Florida. I have never competed as a student, however I've judged debate since 2019 when my first child started middle school.. I judge pretty much every month for our school in Palm beach County and I enjoy contributing to this amazing after school program. I am able to judge speech as well as congress, PF and LD.

I am observant and tend to be impartial based on evidence presented. I listen carefully and try to refrain from imposing my own perspectives, beliefs and philosophy. Note taking is a tool I use readily when judging congress, PF and LD. Oratory speeches can be determined as I go and usually placement ranking determined easily during sessions. Debate skill is highly valued by way of a student's creativity vs truthful arguments. However, truthful arguments, if they outweigh should be supported by referenced materials, statistics , quotes etc. to provide credibility and hard substantial relevance. The evidence and counters are used as tools to cure positions of opposing sides.

Open to Policy making legislative model, weighing advantages vs disadvantages. Hypothesis testing of any social science model where a negative position can put the affirmative position to the test.

Political topics, environmental problems or concerns, Economic shifts with strained relationships with the US, Free trade policies, Human Rights, Terrorism, etc. are some heavy and controversial topics I welcome..

Evaluating solvency arguments of Counterproductivity, Insufficiency and Impracticality are some types of arguments I have been challenged by and many times enjoyed the discourse students provide in their arguments.

Points are generally awarded on skill, but conduct, rudeness, offensive commentary, prejudicial statements and lack of respect will generally impose point deductions. Allowing consideration for opposing teams to complete thoughts is generally considered in awarding points.

About Me:

I am a freshman at Colgate University and competed in Public Forum for four years at Lincoln Southwest High School. I fully qualified to TOC gold & competed at Nationals 3x. I have additional experience with world school's and extemp debate

General:

*Don't spread --> Some speed is fine, but I can only write/type so fast

*Extend your links --> I don't care if you explained your link chain in the last speech, please thoroughly explain it again.

*I don't like nuclear war impacts, and will rarely vote off them.

*Give an off-time road map and signpost during your speech

* I will not evaluate theory/k's/ect in PF.

* I won't listen during cross x, if something important is said bring it up in your speeches

* Be nice and have fun!

Public Forum:

Constructive --> No general preferences, try to make eye contact and read at a steady pace.

Cross --> Be respectful and make sure you are alternating questions. I do not typically pay that much attention during cross

Rebuttal --> Second rebuttal MUST rebuild. Try to do an even amount of carded and analytical responses. If you have cards that contradict each other, explain why I should prefer yours!

Summary --> This is the most important speech! A good summary can definitely be the deciding factor in the round. Make sure you weigh each argument (that includes your opponents). Clarify the major voters in the round and why you win. Weigh, Weigh Weigh!!!

Final Focus: Mirror the summary speech and weigh!

Hello! I've had a few years of experience in debate with an emphasis on Public Forum and I love this activity so much. I understand arguments pretty well however I prefer clear strong links between points. I am a tabula rosa type judge, so basically, I am going to approach your round as if I don't know anything beyond what you tell me. I'm heavy on impacts, if you tell me something is happening, please tell me why it matters. In addition, if you drop an argument I'm not going to care unless you tell me it happened and why it matters. I will always flow rounds, so make sure you're signposting!

If you want that shortened to one sentence here: Please be clear with your arguments as to why they matter and how they relate to the debate.

I am so happy to be a part of your debate! As always, be kind. Respect makes debate a space to share our voices :)

Hi, Im Max!

I am a PF debater for my High school, and I would say I have a decent amount of experience. I don't have a lot of preferences just the few that follow.

I love teams that can work well together, like a well oiled machine. Taking prep is very important and shows you are making adjustments to the round. Speaking loud and clear is very helpful.

I prefer to not listen to any progressive arguments, just debate the resolution.

In final focus I like to have my ballot written for me. Outline why you are winning the round, and make sure to bring up any arguments the other team has dropped on your side. Recap everything important from the round.

In the end, if you have passion and good arguments you will win my ballot.

I am a former NFL Debator (1989-1992) who qualified for nationals in both Team Debate (now policy) and Foreign Extemp. I am currently a Circuit Court Judge in Broward County, Florida.

I expect competitors to be professional and respectful of the opposition. Thoughtful, well supported, arguments will be more convincing than volume. Keep voices up so I don’t miss what you are saying, and ABC (always be confident)!

I am a current freshman at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a Public Forum coach for Lincoln Southwest HS.

--> Debate for UNL.

--> '23 grad from Lincoln Southwest High School.

--> 4 years in HS Public Forum.

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

Important:

**I would like for a speech drop / email chain to be started before round for evidence exchanges if possible; please add me to the email chain: schadlserena@gmail.com

**I flow on paper so keep that in mind when you're speaking - I may not get everything down so it is important to emphasize important arguments multiple times!

**If you plan on running something sensitive, please have a trigger warning at the top of your case as well as a backup case if someone in the round opts out.

**For online debate, please keep your cameras on through the whole round! I need to see your faces :)

**You must use prep time in order to read evidence from another team! I will drop speaks if you are not abiding by NSDA rules.

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

TLDR

How I Evaluate Rounds:

**I am more tech over truth. I will evaluate based off of if you extend your evidence/warrants cleanly throughout speeches. I do not bring my outside knowledge into the round and it is up to you to tell me if I should gut check or call for their evidence. The easiest way to win my ballot is if you clearly warrant, extend, and explain your arguments as well as have sufficient frontlines and blocks against your opponent's arguments. I am not a big fan of blippy argumentation/card dumping - I think good debaters only have to provide a few great arguments on a contention rather than having 7-10 poorly warranted ones.

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

Public Forum:

**Theory can be okay in PF, but only run it if you are aware that your teammates a) know what disclosure/paraphrasing is and b) have no contact info on the wiki/other ways they'd like you to contact them before round. I do not think you should be running theory shells against JV or against schools that are unaware of disclosure/paraphrasing norms. I am more willing to vote for disclosure/paraphrasing if both teams are well aware of these norms and know what theory is. (I do think disclosure is good, but you have to prove that to me in-round).

**K's generally don't go well in PF and are run very poorly most times, I think running a framework or framing about things like structural violence, etc. is more applicable to the event. Please be topical and relate it to the resolution!

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

Round Preferences:

*Sign-posting & road maps are a must! I need to know where you are on the flow so that I can write it down.

*Speed: I can handle you spreading as long as you a) have a speech doc and b) your opponents are okay with it. I will dock speaks if you are unclear or if you opponents have to tell you to slow down/be clear multiple times throughout the round.

*Impacts: Please try not to use the 900 mil. poverty card unless you can substantially prove to me that it will happen, I think the card is overused and rarely links to the arguments being made. Extinction impacts are okay in some instances, usually needs a framing mech for me to want to vote for it - likewise if you want me to prefer high probability impacts. Also, I am not a fan of low probability, high magnitude impacts but I will vote for them.

Cross-X: Cross does not impact my overall decision, I am usually writing feedback during this time; but it should be a time to find holes in your opponent's arguments. Refrain from asking surface level questions like "what is your impact" and try to go deeper into your questioning. Also, any statements like "that's a new argument" or "you conceded this" should not be talked about in cross - cross-x is not a speech! Lastly, if something important happened in cross, it needs to be brought up in the next speech.

Rebuttal: Front lining (responding to arguments made on your case in first rebuttal) in second rebuttal is a MUST! I think it is hard to gain any offense on the flow if arguments go un-responded. Also, please do not talk about your case unless it is a cross-application in first rebuttal, this is fundamental for the first speaking team to solely attack their opponent's case.

Summary: This is the most important speech in the round so this should be a time when you are telling me why you should win! I personally did a line by line summary, but giving me voters is also a great option as well. The most important aspect though is that you are weighing and telling me why your warranting and impacts are better than your opponent's.

Final Focus: This speech should mirror the summary, so please match their voters if they gave any. Line by line is not preferable but at least tell me why you're winning. The final focus is intended to focus the round and give overarching claims and important points that give me a comparison between the AFF and NEG worlds.

**be strategic, find ways to collapse your arguments - try not to go for the whole buffet - pick one or two contentions (if you're running more than 2)

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

LD/Policy:

I am not as familiar with this event in the high school context but I do understand basic policy arguments in terms of NFA LD standards. I have also competed in NDT-CEDA so I am familiar with those policy norms. Lots of the way that I will evaluate the round fall under what I have written in the PF section above, but I will also try to adapt to your style.

General:

--I think sending a doc before each speech if you have new cards you're reading (analytics not needed) is a MUST for varsity debaters.

--A lot of times this event tends to be too heavy on card-dumping and misses a lot of the good weighing interactions. If you can do some sort of framework weighing, impact weighing, etc. - it'll be much easier to win my ballot.

--Tricks are a no-go for me.

K's, Theory, Topicality:

--K's are much more applicable to these events than PF, you just need to substantially prove to me that the alt can solve back for whatever bad thing the AFF is doing. Also, if you have some obscure topic lit. with a bunch of big words - please, please, please explain it so I understand.

--Theory is okay with me, just explain to me why this model of debate you're bringing up should be upheld and why it matters. Frivolous theory is not going to go well and I might just not vote on it if it's nonsensical. Also, you should not be running theory just because you know it'll be an easy win and your opponents won't respond well to it -- theory should only be run if there are true abuses.

--Topicality should be very clear as to why the opponent is not relating to the topic --- I also don't want you to run T arguments that are abusive (I think definition arguments such as the abbreviation of USFG could mean United States Faceters Guild is not going to get you anywhere and doesn't show any reason for me to downvote the team)

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

Speaker Points:

--For open pool: 26 (needs work, many crucial mistakes), 27-28 (quite a few mistakes but attempted frontlines/clash), 29 (good argumentation, good clash interaction, few mistakes), 30 (very clear, minimal changes I would make to the speech). Anything below a 26 means something seriously offensive/abusive happened in round. Also being condescending towards your opponents or not abiding by NSDA rules will drop your speaks by 0.5-1 pts.

--For middle school / novice pool: 27 (needs work, no clash in round), 28 (quite a few mistakes, minimal clash, but good arguments), 29 (good argumentation, a few mistakes here an there), 30 (very clear, minimal mistakes, clashed well with opponent's arguments). I will not give anything below a 27 unless something very offensive was said in the round. Being condescending towards your opponents will drop speaks by 0.5-1 pts. I am less likely to penalize with lower speaks for not abiding by NSDA rules, but I will warn you for next time.

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

Other Things to Keep in Mind:

**NSDA allows paraphrasing in-round (PF), but if an opponent asks for the cut card and cites, you are obligated to give it to them! If there is no carded evidence, I will treat it as analytical. I will also drop speaks by 0.5pts.

**Please try to have your pre-flows printed out, it saves so much time and energy + you can fit more on the flow! I also highly recommend flowing on paper rather than on computer when you're competing.

*Please don't hesitate to ask me questions before or after the round (via email or IRL)! I am open to discussion of how I evaluated. I completely understand some frustration when judges don't vote in a way that you favor and am open to any discussions about any issues you have with my decision (of course, I will not change my ballot after I submit it).

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

About Me:

--Competed 4 years in Public Forum on National & NE Circuit ('19-'23)

--Nebraska State Quarterfinalist ('22 & '23)

--Competed at NSDA Nationals in World Schools ('22 & '23)

--Occasionally compete in NDT Debate

--NFA Nationals Double-Octofinalist ('24)

Hey, I'm a freshman at Rice, and I've done Speech and Debate all four years of high school, primarily competing in Congress, Worlds, PF, and Extemp. I'm always looking forward to judging spirited and respectful debates and speeches.

Congress:

I strongly believe in the "debate" part of the Congressional Debate, so speeches should have either direct or indirect clashes, with the exception of the sponsorship speech. About that speech, I strongly value a proper sponsorship speech (i.e., explaining the legislation and the foundations for the debate). I will "give more points" to someone who gives the speech when the chamber struggles to produce a sponsorship speaker. For POs, I would like to see effective and efficient round control.

Worlds:

Worlds is pretty unique compared to other forms of debate and rather grounded in reality, so debaters shouldn't be spreading or link-chaining to crazy arguments. Interpreting the motion is a very important component in a World's round. I expect competitors to understand how the motion's verb wording (ex., would, believes, regrets, etc.) affects the focus of the debate and to effectively argue for their interpretation of the motion throughout the round. I also think consistency is important between speakers. At the very least, the team's best ideas need to be argued by each speaker.

If you say you're making a principle argument, it better be a principle argument.

Debate:

I have competed in most debate events, so I understand how the round will proceed from start to finish. However, you may need to explain jargon before you use it. I am new to Theory and Ks; use them at your own risk. I can flow decently well, but I cannot flow spreading. If you see me stop writing to lift my pencil up, you are speaking too fast for me.

Speech:

When done right, speech rounds are some of the most interesting to listen to. I'll value speeches highly when they show the speaker's personality or attempt to be entertaining. I'll also be looking at the content intensely. The speech should be well-informed by credible sources and make strong logical arguments from evidence. Lastly, I appreciate speakers who try to have clarity, with a clear organization for the full speech and a line of reasoning for specific points.

Interp

I'll rank speakers based on overall enjoyment and originality.

I am currently in my sixth year debating at Mountain Brook High School

Top Level Stuff

-Add me to the email chain and email me with any questions after the round: jacksonrshort@gmail.com

-Debate is a game; win the game

-Debate needs to be a fun activity; if you make me laugh you'll get an extra speaker point

PF

-I am comfortable with speed, but don't spread, it's PF, if you want to spread do a different event

-I'm ok with pretty much all kinds of progressive argumentation, but if I don't understand it, I can't vote off of it, so make sure you explain it well

-I generally think theory is a good thing (especially paraphrasing), but it really bothers me when teams read it simply as a cop-out. Only read theory if your opponent is doing something that merits it. That said, if your opponent is reading theory just to try to win the round and not address an actual issue, then call it out; I am very open to voting on a friv theory arg. Also, if you're not comfortable with it, don't read it; there are plenty of other ways to win the round.

LD

-I'm comfortable with speed, but if you spread send a speech doc

-Please please please implicate the round through your value and criterion; if you don't, I don't know what to vote on

-Generally comfortable with progressive debate

-If you read tricks or super philosophical arguments, explain them well. If I don't understand it I won't vote on it.

I'm a PF debater, but make sure to speak at lay speed and be clear
General Stuff:

1. Respect others

2. Time yourself. I will also do it too, but it makes it way easier for me if you do it yourself

3. Do NOT sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand what you are saying I won't flow

4. Tell me where you are on your flow when you give your speech

5. Use up all of your speech time if you can!! You know more than you think, and if all else fails just explain your case

6. I don’t flow cross

Rebuttals

1. Quality > Quantity; I prefer responses that are explained, especially with how it interacts with the case

Summary

1. COLLAPSE COLLAPSE COLLAPSE down on one or two arguments. Do not give me a summary of everything

2. weigh. weigh. weigh. start early. I expect weighing in BOTH summary and final focus. Tell me why I prefer your arguments and compare your arguments with your opponents.

3. No new arguments or evidence should be read AFTER the first summary unless you are responding to a new response in the first summary.

Final Focus

1. If it's not in summary, it can't be in the final focus.

2. Paint a narrative by the final focus speeches. EXTEND the full link chain and warrants and impact.

12th grader at BASIS Scottsdale: PF for 4 years since 9th grade, BQ debater before that in 7th grade

If this paradigm does not answer some of your questions, ask me in the round and I will answer it

Most important thing to start: be respectful to everyone in the round. Any exclusionary comments/actions in the round, e.g. racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia will be dropped.

On this BQ topic:

I've been coaching on this topic this whole year, so i have a good idea of most teams' arguments and strategy but I will only vote off what is said in the round

How I decide the round:

1. I first look at the round based off who is winning the weighing in the round. If the team that is winning the weighing has sufficient, well warranted offense on that argument, I'll vote there.

2. If there is no weighing, I will vote off best extended offense in the round. BUT PLEASE WEIGH. I do not want to do this because intervention is bad for debate.

3. Make sure any weighing done in the round is well-warranted, don't just throw out jargon like "vote on scope"

4. Make sure your arguments are well warranted

General Stuff:

1. Tech>truth in general: basically means that I will vote for arguments that are best extended, not necessarily more true. BUT make sure your arguments are true, as if they are not, I will be more likely to side with your opponent

2. Frontline stuff you want to extend in second rebuttal

3. Weigh: do the comparative of the two arguments in the round and prove why yours is stronger

4. Signpost during your speeches

5. Collapse on one argument

6. I will not be flowing cross: anything conceded in cross should be brought up in speech

7. I will be timing you, and I will stop flowing if you go 10 seconds over

8. Reading cards off prep unless you call for an excessive amount, if you want to me to call for a card, tell me during speech

9. wear anything, sit/stand however you want... speech and debate should be fun and relaxing

I will almost always give really high speaker points, unless you are unnecessarily rude or exclusionary.

I will most likely be disclosing after the round is over, and I will give you feedback on your speeches/round strategy. Feel free to ask me questions about the decision or the round afterwards.

Good luck everyone!!

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.

Background: 4 years of high school speech and debate with Flintridge Prep. Competed mostly in Parliamentary and Big Questions but I have done Worlds and Policy

Overall, I'm game with whatever kind of round makes you feel the most comfortable and I'm willing to vote on pretty much any argument. However, please make it accessible to everyone else in the room (opponents and judges) who may not be comfortable with certain jargon or argumentation. I like rounds that have a lot of clash, but that doesn't mean you should expect me to remember every warrant you've read. Therefore, you should use the last speech to tell me a) what argument you won b) why you won it and c) why it should be enough to win the ballot- I should be able to follow this without having seen any of the debate beforehand (I will of course be flowing though). I will do my best not to intervene. Please maintain a sense of decorum and respect your opponents/judges- this matters more to me than who wins the round. Most importantly, make sure you are having fun!

Varsity Policy/LD stuff

I'm ok with speed as long as all judges/competitors are as well (access is important to me). Just send a speech doc (dylan.tanouye@gmail.com) and slow down for tags and analytics. If I can't understand your arguments, I won't be able to vote for you. Don't read theory just for the sake of trying to get your opponent to drop a disclosure shell, save it for genuine violations and I'll be more compelled to vote on it. I'm willing to listen to a K on both the aff and the neg, just explain your advocacy a little more than you normally would since I don't have a ton of experience here.

Good luck and feel free to ask me any questions before round!

Hi! My name is Aditi Thakur, and I've been a public forum debated for the past 3 years, so I have some decent experience/knowledge with pf.

Just some general things I look for:

• please be polite and curteous to your opponents, ex: theres a difference in being mean and being assertive in cross fire
• I would generally prefer you speak at a understandable pace, however since I've done pf for so long, I can handle a bit of speed.
• Tell mewhy I should prefer voting for you - and I don't just mean telling me why your opponents arguments are trash, but why yours are better than theres. So in other words - weigh.
• Extend your arguments and cards throughout your speeches
• If you present evidence in a round, I'll take your word for it unless your opponents prove otherwise. However I won't just buy random arguments/evidence (ex: this source states that the moon is green)

Good luck! If you have any further questions after the round or about your decision, feel free to email me at thakuraditi.0504@gmail.com

I've coached Speech & Debate for around a decade now. I do not support any form of progressive debate in PF. Prove you understand the resolution and the content of the topic. Here’s some advice:

- No spreading, I’ll say “clear” if you need to slow down

- Use taglines and signpost to maintain clarity of flow

- I do not flow cross examination so be sure to include ideas in speech

- I am a believer in pragmatism over the ideological

- Clear elaboration and correlation is as important as card use

-Link the arguments, don't make assumptions or just point to a card

-It should not take over a minute to find cards, please be familiar with your evidence

- Keep the round moving, I’ll keep time of speeches and prep

Most important thing: do NOT be mean, hateful, or discriminatory towards others. You don't have to like your opponents, but you do have to respect them. If you don't, you can easily guess what will happen.

TL;DR for novices: Please weigh impacts, keep speed to a minimum. More explained below.

If you cleanly write my ballot and make my job easy in the debate, you'll most likely get my vote. For novices, I really want to see impact weighing (stuff like magnitude, probability, etc. )in summary and final focus. Take your time to explain what your impacts are, and most importantly how you access them since impacts dont matter if I can't give them to you (Ex: don't just tell me nuclear war will happen, tell me what specifically will cause it, who it will likely be between, etc.) Likewise, clearly explain the warrants behind your arguments rather than repeating them, as impacts don't work if you can't access them. For novices I do want you to try to do some warranting, even if it is short and not the best. It helps me be a better judge, and I can guarantee it will go better than you think.

Important note for me: I DO NOT like speed. I have medical issues with my hands that make it hard to flow at a quick pace. For novices especially, please do not go fast. Focus on developing good argumentation rather than trying to go fast, since the former will make or break you and the latter won't. I'd rather judge one or two strong contentions than 3 or 4 weak ones. If nothing else, this is the one time you can go slow in PF without being penalized. If you want to go fast/spread fine, but it A) shows poor judge adaptability(mainly affects speaker points, I won't drop you on this alone but if it's a close round it may factor into my decision) and B) there is no way I'm going to catch all of your warrants and arguments, so "my opponent didn't respond to this" will not be a good enough answer. Likewise, if you chose to go fast and there's an argument I don't vote on because it wasn't on my flow, that is on you.

Finally, Debate is supposed to be fun, so don't over stress and remember to have good vibes. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask after the round! My memory isn't that great, so sooner rather than later is appreciated.

I am a traditional judge, believing PFD is not Policy or LD, please stick the tenants that established what PFD was and still should be. Speed is deterred, if you speak too quickly those contention cards are dropped, slower pace and stronger arguments win out. Please be respectful and when asking for cards or evidence please have readily available, if not, the time will be taken from your prep time, especially if the inability to locate and send is abusive.

Thank you and looking forward to a great debate.