Hi! I’m a new judge in Public Forum. Please speak clearly and don’t forget to have fun!

About me: Mohit Agarwal - College Student, Not lay, Former PF debater

+2 speaks if you mention how evolution is fake

Tech > Truth

Drops are sticky and usually fatal

If you spread disclose

For LD/Policy:

I get basic value criterion stuff, if you run theory/K's/CP's/Disads I will try to follow along and don't have a problem with ROTB style args, but I have extremely little experience with it.

For PF:

If you run disclosure theory or anything exotic I will be very entertained and then drop you, do LD if you want to run theory so bad.

For congress:

I should never be judging this and if I am I will be sad ;(

Dont add me to email chains - if you want me to look at evidence just ask me

Flay Judge.

Prefer speaking at a normal pace (not super fast), and making clear points (even if fewer) instead of spreading.

The quality/strength of your arguments matters much more to me than the number of points made.

Be more convincing

I will not judge points that are not explicitly stated and will not interpret anything on my own except if there is bad evidence ethics.

I am a parent judge and I mostly judge PF but am familiar with debate structure and have been judging for a while. Please keep your own time.

I will flow everything in round except cross, so if something significant happens bring it up in the round and I will add it to my flow. Off time roadmaps are helpful, but please keep it brief.

I sometimes think the evidence read is weak or unrelated but if your opponent doesn’t challenge it, I likely won’t either. If evidence conflicts I will typically believe whichever one is more more convincing to a reasonable individual.

Two of the most important things to me as a judge are dropped arguments and impacts.

Please be nice, everyone is doing their best, if you are rude you will lose points. I appreciate kindness to your competitors especially in novice. It doesn’t matter to me if you sit or stand, nor does it matter how you dress. Be comfortable and have fun.

Good luck :)

Lay parent 3rd year judge

Speak relatively slow, explain and weigh, no theory/Ks

Tech judge. Please do not do off time road maps unless if you say where you are going to start and end on the flow. Please keep it below 5-10 seconds.

Hi! My name is Raif, I debated PF from 2016-2020 at local, state, and nat circ tourneys in the northeast. I coached TOC qualifying and judged extensively from 2020-2022. Once we are in the round, I will provide my email for a email evidence chain or a google doc whichever u prefer. On any other event than PF you can treat me like a well meaning lay judge.

PF:

General Stuff:

-I live for the line by line debate, a rebuttal that clearly signposts what part of a contention that the second speaker will be responding to and then applying responses that are actually responsive and not just topshelf is awesome, and same thing goes for summaries/final foci. "Big picture/voters style debate" is tolerable, but nothing beats a good line by line round.

-All Offense(Contentions, Turns, or Disads) has to be properly FRONTLINED(Improperly frontlining is when you just straight up extend through ink pretending that explaining your link story actually responds to your opponent's response when it clearly doesn't or drop any response on any argument you collapse on), EXTENDED(An extension that isn't sufficient is one that extends a link, but then drops the impact, or just only extends an impact without a link, please do both), and probably WEIGHED in BOTH SUMMARY AND FINAL FOCUS IN ORDER TO BE EVALUATED. In non-debate jargon: Explain the arguments you want me to vote for you off of, answer your opponent's responses, and explain why your arguments are more important than your opponents in both summary and final focus.

-WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS. "Weighing" by saying "we outweigh on probability and magnitude" with no further explanation is not weighing. You genuinely have to compare your impacts or links and explicitly explain why I prefer one link or impact over the other. Weighing will boost your speaks, but weighing by just using buzzwords with no additional analysis will make me physically cringe. Don't take advantage of Probability/Strength of Link Weighing to read new link or impact defense that wasn't in the round already. If you start weighing in rebuttal, +.5 speaks for you and an imaginary cookie! The only time I will accept new weighing in either final foci is if there has literally been no weighing in the past speeches by either side(if u reach this scenario, your speaks won't be as high compared to if yall started weighing earlier).

-Turns read in the first rebuttal have to be responded to in the second rebuttal, or I consider it as a clean line of offense for the first speaking team(hey first speaking team you should probably blow that up!). The second rebuttal probably should also frontline defensive responses for strategic purposes, but that is not mandatory.

-UPDATE: 3-minute summaries require defense to be extended in first summary.Because of 1st Summary not being able to definitively know what the second speaking team is collapsing on in summary and final focus, 1st Final Focus CAN extend defensive responses from rebuttal to Final Focus ONLY IF the response was dropped(uncontested). That being said, I would much rather prefer if you could also extend the responses you want to collapse on in FF be in summary too. Please don't say a certain response was dropped when it wasn't. If a link turn is read by a team in rebuttal, and then is not read in summary, but is dropped by the opposing team in their summary, I am willing to evaluate the turn as terminal defense in final focus if the team who read it in rebuttal decides to extend the response in their final focus.

-If there is no offense at the end of the round I will presume the status quo(default con), but before that I will try to find some trivial piece of offense on on the flow that may seem insignificant to the debate if it comes to that(please do not let it come to that).

-Signpost: If I can't tell where you are on the flow, then I cant flow what you say, and that sucks for everyone!

-Warranted analytic>Carded response with no warrant most of the time

-Tech>Truth

Lay-------------Flay---------X---Tech

-Defesne is sticky, even if a response isnt extended in summary and final, if said response was read onto one of the arguments that would be collapsed on in the latter half of the round, I would be more hesitant to vote off of that argument compared to other arguments collapsed in the latter half of the round that have less ink on them or no ink that hasnt been frontlined.

-For concessions in crossfire to be evaluated, CONCESSIONS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP IN THE NEXT SPEECH.

Speed:(<275 Words Per Minute)

-Please don't spread, you can honestly just work on your word economy!

-I’ve been less involved recently, and if it’s online please speak at a normal pace.

-Def pref 180-200wpm the most but above that is bearable untill 275wpm.

-If you can speak CLEARLY AND QUICKLY, you should be fine!

-If you go fast, and I yell clear more than twice, your speaks are getting docked(there is literally no educational or tangible real-world benefits made from spreading so quickly that neither I nor your opponents can comprehend your arguments).

-Quality of responses>Quantity of response

I trust you to count your own prep time, please do not abuse that.

Theory/Ks/Other Progressive Args:

-As someone who debated mainly in the Northeast, I don't know how to evaluate progressive arguments because I have never really debated them nor have I been exposed to them much. I am open to hearing them and don't plan on hacking against them, but I would much rather not have to judge fast progressive rounds if I do not have to.

-2 exceptions tho:

A) Impacting to structural violence if it is warranted, frontlined, and continuously extended in a logical and intuitive manner.

B) If your opponents are genuinely being abusive in the round, at that point you don't need to read a shell, just straight up say they are being abusive and warrant it quickly(i.e. "they read a new and unrelated contention in second rebuttal that does not interact with our case, that's abusive bc of timeskew.")

Evidence:

-I try to avoid calling for evidence as much as possible.

-Paraphrasing is okay so long as it is within the context of the actual evidence

-After two minutes(Im sympathetic to those w slow laptops bc I had one when I used to debate), if you can't get your evidence, I'm just not evaluating it, and we are moving on with the round. If want to use your team's prep time to still get the evidence after the two minutes, you can do that too if it is so important.

-Your speaks are getting DOCKED if you're misrepresenting evidence and I will drop the evidence/or even the argument entirely from the round based on how severe the misconstrual is.

-Unless the opposing team tells me miscut evidence means I should drop the debater and why, the team that miscut the evidence WILL NOT have an auto-drop.

These are the scenarios I call for evidence:

A) A debater tells me to in the round

B) It sounds hella sketch/too good to be true

C) It is important for my decision

-Evidence weighing or whatever is generally really cringe, but there are exceptions like in this vid(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siA9SmHyO7M&t=2610s) at 42:15.

Good luck, don't be mean, and have fun!

Hello, I am a new judge, this is my first time judging public forum. All I ask is that you speak slowly and be respectful towards one another.

I debated in PF for 4 years (2016-2020) in MN, I'm now an assistant coach for Blake. Please put me on the email chain before round and send full speech docs + cut cards before case and rebuttal: lillianalbrecht20@gmail.com and blakedocs@googlegroups.com

Evidence ethics and exchanges in PF are terrible, please don’t make it worse. Start an email chain before rounds and make exchanges as fast as possible. Sending speech docs to everyone before you read case and rebuttal (including your evidence) makes exchanges faster and lets you check back for your opponent's evidence. I find myself evaluating evidence a lot more now, so please make sure you're reading cut cards.

I tend to vote on the path of least resistance, meaning I’ll vote for clean turns over messy case args. I'm kind of a lazy judge that way, but the less I have to think about where to vote the better. But if a turn/disad isn’t implicated or doesn’t have a link, I’m not gonna buy it. Most teams don't actually impact out or weigh their turns, so doing that is an easy way to win my ballot.

You need to frontline in second rebuttal. Turns/new offense is a must, but the more you cover the better.

Everything you want to go for has to be in summary and FF. This includes offense and defense--defense is not sticky for 1st summary. If you don't extend your links and impacts in summary/FF I can't vote for you.

I’m generally good with speed, but I value quality over quantity. I typically flow on paper and will not flow off the doc, so slowing down on tags + analytics is appreciated. I will clear you if I cannot understand you, typically for unclear speaking rather than the speed itself.

Please signpost, for both of our sakes. Clear signposting makes it easier to understand your arguments and easier to vote for you. Line by line is preferred, but whatever you do, just tell me where to write it down.

The more weighing you do the better. Weigh every piece of offense you want to win for best results.

The more you collapse in the second half of the round, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

Speaker points are kinda dumb, but I usually average 28. Good strat + jokes will boost your speaks, being offensive/rude + slow to find evidence will drop them.

I'm fine with theory if there's real abuse. I won't vote on frivolous theory and I'll be really annoyed judging a round on the hyper-specifics of a debate norm (ie, open-source v. full-text disclosure). Good is good enough. Generally, I think that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good, but I'll evaluate whatever args you read in front of me. That being said, I really do not want to judge theory debates, so please avoid running them.

I don't mind K debate theoretically, but I have a really high threshold for what K debate should be in PF. I have some experience running and judging Ks, but I'm not very familiar with the current lit + hyperspecific terminology. I'm also really opposed to the current trend of Ks in PF. If your alt doesn't actually do anything with my ballot you don't have any offense that I can vote for you on. If you want to read a K in front of me, you need to go at 75% of your max speed. Far too often teams read a bunch of blippy arguments and forget to actually warrant them. Going slower and walking me through the warranting will be the way to win my ballot--this includes responses to the K as well. However, similar to theory, I really do not want to judge a K round, so run at your own risk.

Feel free to email me with any questions you have about the round!

i judge debate rounds like the new york times editorial board: i just wish i could vote for everyone!

2015-2019 circuit pf/extemp at theodore roosevelt in des moines, iowa

put me on the chain: finnm.cool02@gmail.com

DEBATER MATH IS BAD MATH

not a huge fan of friv theory

tl;dr anything not discriminatory goes, please comparatively weigh, collapse strategically, and frontline!!!

first to steal some from other paradigms:

ethics > tech > truth, if I think that voting for you makes debate more exclusionary, in a manner I find indefensible, I will have no problem dropping you without a technical justification. Sorry not sorry.

the most enjoyable part of debate is when debaters successfully mold a convincing narrative out of ridiculous concepts

I will not vote on any case arguments addressing domestic violence, sexual violence, or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull the trigger on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.

now, some thoughts of my own:

Ks encouraged, your speaks will reflect that if you run them well...

HOWEVER if you run an identity-based position and neither of you are a member of that community, don't

i'd prefer theory to be run in shell form but i won't penalize you if you're unfamiliar with formal technical structure, just explain why your opponents are being abusive/bad for debate and why that means i should vote for you

if strictly a substance debate, i evaluate the fw debate first and do impact calc under that

good and interesting fw debates will lead to high speaks, but also don’t throw a framework in just because (especially CBA, which is just a waste of time in constructive)

presume 1st speaking team if no offense, absent a presumption arg made in the round

if an argument is not addressed in the next speech, it is a dropped argument (this means yes, you do have to frontline in second rebuttal)

defense is sticky!!! if you drop terminal defense on an argument i won't vote for you on it, even if it never comes up again after first rebuttal

weigh comparatively ideally beginning in rebuttal, if your "weighing" is just yelling your impact and some buzzword like magnitude at each other, nobody's gonna be happy

for me to vote on any offense and frontlined defense that is in final focus, it must also be in summary

be strategic! you don't have to go for everything, and it's never a good idea to do so!

speed-wise I’m good for ~250wpm anything more and I’ll need a speech doc to avoid missing things (but if you feel excluded by your opponents going too fast, implicate that as in-round abuse for a path to the ballot)

evidence should have author last name and date

extensions have warrant and impact, actually explain the argument and why it matters rather than just “extend Whalen 14 moving on”

speaks are 27 and above unless you’re big heinous

plz plz plz ask me any questions you have before/after the round, this is an educational activity

ill disclose speaks if you ask me

auto-30s if you:

-win on anthro or baudrillard (this doesn’t mean I’ll hack, you have to actually win the arg)

-take no prep time & win

blakeandrews55@gmail.com for email chain or questions

Short version: Speed is fine and go for whatever type of argument you want( i.e. I don't care if you go for traditional policy arguments versus a K... just debate well) I find debaters do well in front of me that collapse, extend warrants, do impact calc, and give judge instruction when appropriate.

"If you want my ballot, this is really a simple concept. Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. Repeat."

About Me:
B.A. University of Texas at Austin 2015

Former Head Coach McNeil HS

Worked at some camps in the past like MGC, UTNIF, U of H for LD.

I did LD in HS for a small program in Texas. I cleared at a handful of bid tournaments / TFA State but dropped in early elim rounds. I've coached ld debaters with success at tfa state, some toc success, UIl, and nsda. I've coached a cx team in out rounds of tfa state, qualified to nationals, and elims of uil state. I've been involved in debate for a while, but am currently not coaching just judging.

Top Level 1. Slow down on tags. I have dysgraphia. I can flow speed but slowing down for tags, plan texts, theory interps etc benefits everyone.

2. Do what you do best. I am probably better for kritiks in general, but if you love going for the politics disad don't let me stop you.

3. Judge instruction is critical, please weigh( probability, time frame, magnitude).

4. Please flesh out solvency deficits when answering counterplans. Aff's should feel less afraid to call out abusive counterplans (no problem voting on process cps, etc, but aff's should be less afraid to go for theory the more abusive the cp gets).Like every other judge I like when debaters read less generic positions and engage in the aff

5. Fine with voting on theory, but the more frivolous the shell the less work goes into answering the argument. Reasonability specifically in LD is under rated.

6. K affs are good with me. Explain why your model of debate is good( what arguments does the negative have access to). I am fine with voting on framework / T USFG and probably have a 50-50 voting record with K affs.

- For K's in general be good at explaining your thesis/ theory of power. Have a clear picture of what the world of the alternative looks like and don't forget to engage with the 1ac. You should be pulling lines from the aff to prove links etc.

7. I am a horrible judge for tricks in LD. Please strike me

8. I will down you with the lowest possible speaks for being sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

9. I will not evaluate give me 30 speaks arguments or evaluate the round after X speech args. I will evaluate the debate once the last speech is given.

Defaults condo good, drop the arg on theory ( except if you win condo bad, which is drop the team, but hopefully teams go for substance), drop the debater on T. Default to competing interps( reasonability in LD is under rated given the significance of bad theory in LD)

PF specific please no paraphrasing in pf. Speaks will go down. You will get good speaks for reading fully cut cards. Evidence comparison, fleshing out warrants, and impact calc helps me vote for you.

Email Jororynyc@gmail.com
Perry Hs
UW
Assistant LD coach at Peninsula, 2023-Present

Cleared at the Toc.
Alot of the way I think comes from Amber Kelsie, Jared Burke, Tay Brough and Raunak Dua - LD thoughts from Elmer Yang and Gordon Krauss.

Mostly read K arguments - Some policy arguments on the neg. Some Affs had plans.
I am bad for Phil or Trix.
FW: I think the neg should win why fairness outweighs whatever Disad the Aff has - The Aff needs to have a counter interp that defends a type of model of debate and what the role of the neg is.

Slow down and tell me how to evaluate the debate. I wont flow until 1NC case so I can read evidence. I also have no problem telling you I did not understand what you said if its not explicit by the last speech.

I am a parent judge and an Electrical Engineer with a love of literature and history. I appreciate eloquent speaking and well-reasoned arguments rooted in data and facts.

Please speak clearly and do not spread - I won't give you a win if I can't understand what you're saying.

Lay Parent Judge

I have never judged any debate events before.

Debate as if I know nothing about the topic at hand.

Please do NOT speak fast or use debate jargon. If I can't understand what you are saying, it's harder for me to vote for you.

Please be nice in crossfire and don't interrupt your opponents.

Hi everyone!

I'm a parent judge with a year of experience judging public forum. Here's a couple things I look for in round:

- Please create an email chain for each round. Label it clearly -- should be something like, "Berkeley Round 4 Flight 1: Vista Del Lago BP (Aff 1st) v. Vista del Lago GR (Neg 2nd). Add archanarajan7@gmail.com into the email chain. I request that both teams send the cards for constructive in the chain before your speeches - it makes sharing evidence a LOT easier and reduces the time we spend for calling cards.

- Do not spread

- Argumentation: Have arguments with a clear structure (UQ, Link, Impact). Keep it simple -- things that are overcomplicated will probably leave me confused and I'm not gonna vote for that. Provide good warranting for your cards, the more explanation for me, the better. Have a quantified impact!! Don't just say things get worse, give me a number -- it's a lot easier to give you the win if I know exactly how my decision is impacting people.

- Weighing: super important in summary and final. Tell me how to write my ballot - why is your impact better?

- Refutations: Quality > Quantity. Make sure you implicate each of your responses, don't just dump cards on me. Signpost really clearly, it only takes a couple seconds but makes it a lot easier for me to write down. Avoid using buzzwords like "delink" or "turn". Also make sure the refutations that you give thoroughly cover every aspect of the argument.

- Cross: Be respectful. I use cross to determine speaks.

- No theory, ks, frameworks

- Be respectful! Debate is about learning from others, not trying to win at all costs. Any rude, discriminatory, or hateful/profane language should not come into the round.

Have fun and best of luck to everyone!

I am a new judge, with little experience on debate so here are some things I look for.

1. Clarity. Please be clear so I can understand. Explain why you win compared to the other team(weighing)
2. Respect. Your speaks will be docked if you do not show proper debate etiquette.
3. Quality>Quantity

In the end I am a more lay judge, but I do flow.

UPDATED 02/20/2024

I am a coach with more than a decade of experience in the speech/debate community, including as the coach of two NSDA national champion teams in World Schools Debate. I spend most of my tournament days in tournament administration, or running/working Tab, though I still judge on occasion. I work mostly with World Schools Debate, Congress, Public Forum, and Parliamentary competitors, as well as with Speech competitors. I am somewhere between lay and proficient as an LD judge, and I should be treated as a lay judge in Policy rounds.

As of February 2024, I have squirreled less than 8% of rounds that I've judged.

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. Brief roadmaps are welcome and appreciated. Also, please signpost! I shouldn’t leave the round wondering what your primary case arguments were, and how they correlate with those belonging to your opponents.

2. Frame and weigh arguments/impacts/evidence/etc for me and provide a clear analysis of the various items on the flow. As important as it is that I can identify that debaters' arguments, it's even more important for you to guide me through comparative weights and why your arguments/evidence/analysis is stronger and/or more important than those of your opponents.

3. I generally believe the Affirmative has the burden of proof. If AFF can’t make the case why their proposition is better than the status quo, NEG is almost certain to get my ballot. On the other hand, it isn't enough for NEG to simply say, "AFF's world isn't perfect, therefore NEG's world is better and you must negate".

4. If you do not address your opponents’ arguments, I am assuming you do not intend to refute them. Time management is important when strengthening your arguments and still leaving room to refute your opponents’. Take a few seconds to collapse so my flow is clean at the end of the round.

5. Treat me as though I have an at-best average understanding of what you're debating. I consider myself a fairly well-informed and logical person, so while I'm likely understanding the terminology and abbreviations you are rushing through, I have blind spots (like all human beings). I generally provide more weight to things that you spend time emphasizing--if you're taking the time to make sure I understand something, I'm going to assume it's pretty damn important.

6. I am not really Tech>Truth or Truth>Tech. I probably vote more consistently on the side of tech, but if you make an argument that is wildly untrue/unreasonable, I'm not going to vote for it regardless of whether your opponents call that argument out or not.

7. I'm open to a good/reasonable K, but there are very few instances where I believe a K has both been argued effectively and makes sense in the context of the round. I will never, never vote on disclosure theory, so don't bother running it.

8. Please don't ask me for my e-mail address to send me your case. I should be able to flow without reading your case, and I'm also just fundamentally opposed to adult judges/coaches having correspondence with students who are not their own.

Preferences that do not normally factor into my decision:

1. DO NOT SPREAD. If you are speaking and moving too quickly that I can’t keep up, we have a problem that could end with me missing something crucial to your case. I will stop taking notes if I cannot understand you.

2. There is a fine line between charm and smarm. Know the difference, because I certainly do. Humor, when done well and at the appropriate time, will endear me to you as a speaker. Too much humor/sass/sarcasm, and I think you've misunderstood this competition for amateur night at your local comedy club. In World Schools Debate, I am generally more willing to give latitude for sass than I am in any other event.

3. If your opponent calls for a card, you should have it relatively readily available. I don’t expect it to be at your side immediately, but when we get past 45 seconds, I’m either losing my patience or start to suspect you don’t have it.

4. PF'ers - Cross and Grand Cross should not be seen as opportunities to see who can speak the loudest or be the most assertive.

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE

In general, my expectation for WSD rounds is that you are taking your opponents at their highest ground. Motions should be reasonably interpreted, but I am not interested in an interpretation-exclusive approach to rebutting your opponents' arguments. Call out abuse when reasonable, and move on.

Compare worlds for me--to win the comparative, you need to prove to me that your world is substantively better than your opponents', and explain why.

Content: What does your case look like? Are your arguments fully fleshed-out? I expect you to state your claim, establish plenty of warrants behind that claim, and link concrete impacts. I reward solid analysis with high scores. If you can present effective practical and principle arguments to me, you can expect a high Content score.

Style: This one's pretty straightforward. I mark down speech readers, and boost solid rhetoric turns/flips. I want to know that you, as a speaker, are fully engaged with your opponents and judge(s). This is the one event where I like debaters to have more "colorful" rhetoric--and as long as what you're saying isn't flagrantly rude or disrespectful, I'll probably enjoy the sass and humor, and boost your Style score for it.

Strategy: This is where I evaluate your approach to the motion, as well as how you approach your opponents' case and arguments. One of the most important things that I look for are your understanding of arguments that require your response and arguments that require your dismissiveness. I expect you to break down the flow, but not all arguments are created equally. I recognize solid strategy scores from debaters who are able to zero in on the arguments that are likely to matter to me at the end of the round. I also expect POI's to have a purpose--they're the Chekov's gun of this event. If you're asking a POI, it should be evident at some point in the next speech why that POI was asked.

CONGRESS

In general, I highly value Congressional debaters who are equally adept at rhetoric/presentation and argumentation/technical debate skills. I don't flow a Congress round the same way I might any other debate round, but I AM tracking arguments and who is helping to structure and frame the debate.

You can be the best speaker in the round, but if you disappear during other speakers' CX, you should expect to be marked down significantly.

Unless you are the very first speaker on legislation, I expect at least one small refutation from you during your speech. The later the round goes, your refutation bar rises higher.

Late-round speakers who do not add anything substantive to the debate will not stand out for me. Even if you feel there aren't many new arguments left to be made, crystallize other arguments for me and explain why some matter more than others.

Presiding Officers - I should feel like I'm very much in YOUR chamber, not mine. PO's who truly control the room are the ones who stand out. I weigh your efficiency, procedural knowledge, and style.

A parent Judge

Would give equal weightage to Content and Delivery

Explain your arguments clearly and not too fast, share data points related to your case and articulate the impact of your argument

Clearly identify which argument from other team are you responding to

Highlight if other team missed addressing any of your argument

Do keep track of allocated time of your and the other team's arguments

Update: Here's some SetCol lectures and links to hella lit I compiled a while ago:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UzbBrwOK3BDTgMTgV2KNnS14BiLKb4e1

Update: If you love to run theory in LD, you probably should strike me.

I've never particularly liked theory, but over the last couple years theory in LD has turned into a profoundly uneducational whine-off that devolves into students running baseless accusations of "abuse". Especially in a time where debaters are starting to call out real life abuse they may face from the debate community, it's becoming harder and harder for me to stomach rewarding "their definition is abusive because now I have to run theory and that's a time skew" (which is self-fulfilling) type theory arguments with a ballot. I firmly believe that the discourse we use in rounds can shape our worldviews and community norms. "Abuse", a term that should carry significance, is subconsciously rendered meaningless because it's flippantly tossed around to win a ballot. It develops connotations of self-serving technicalities that I firmly believe seep into how we view people speaking out about real abuse.
(It occurred to me that some debaters may want to borrow the above paragraph, so if you do, please keep the cutting I've bolded to avoid accidentally misrepresenting the argument.)

Short version: I’m a flow judge down with most K’s, spreading, CPs (condo or uncondo) narratives, performance, and projects. If you bite into your own K, you're screwed. For the love of coffee, SIGNPOST. Don’t run bad science. I love IR and current events. I hate Eurocentric perspectives. Theory debate is meh at the best of times when it’s done well and downright painful when it’s done poorly or unnecessarily. (update: just don't run theory in front of me) I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or the other on RVI’s. Topicality: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . Weigh impacts. I will listen to whatever you have to say as long as it is well supported, do not just assume certain things are good or bad. Case debate is fun. Framework debate is interesting, whoever wins framework controls how I will view the round and usually gets my ballot. I’m incredibly non-interventionist (unless someone’s winning the “the judge should be a critical intellectual” arg, then be prepared for what intellect you have unleashed.) and rarely vote on presumption, unless something egregious happens in round. Don’t be a jackass - at this point, and especially given how misogynistic debatespace can be, if you're excessively rude to your opponent I am not going to reward that type of behavior with a ballot if it's an otherwise close round. Like, it's not that hard to not be a jerk, it usually saves you time.

Last thing - lots of teams have been running Indigenous something or other in front of me. I guess they inherently assume this is good judge adaptation. It frequently is not. If you are planning on doing this, please scroll down to the bottom and read my opinions on this instead of telling me how to think about my own identity.

(Also, I like a lot of different things. I'm super nerdy. Please don't feel constrained in the breadth of arguments you can run in front of me; there's more to me than my race. *cries single tear*)

^you’ll probably be fine with just that, the rest is provided for kicks and giggles.
Launching the Logorrhea

Use your head! Analysis: I want to see critical engagement with the literature. Don’t just say that something is true or desirable because some author said so. Explain what you are arguing in your own words, tell me why it matters and why it is important to be heard in this round. Blippy arguments aren’t going to have much punch. When you extend, restate the analysis; I dislike extending points for the sake of just having stuff on the flow, tell me why it’s important in the round.

Disads: I want a clear link/internal link story. This is often lacking in politics disads, which are interesting when done well and awful when they’re like “voting for this bill drains the president’s political capital”. Be specific and intrinsic. Impact calc is important as is reminding me why I should be weighing all this under your framework. I’m not tied to Probability >Magnitude or Manitude>Probability – you convince me which one I should prioritize. Timeframe can be a good tie-breaker for this.

Theory: See update at the top. If you run it, please make sure it's warranted. I have voted on it and will if it isn't responded to, but it’s not exactly my favorite type of debate. Clarify what you mean by “reasonability” and why you are being more reasonable.

Non-topical Affs: Go for it. Extra-topical plans: If you’re all debating the resolution straight up, being extra-T isn’t very fair.

Let's be clear on the need for speed: I can handle pretty fast spread, just make sure to enunciate. I will yell clear if needed, but after 2 or 3 "clears" you will start losing speaks if you don’t listen. Please don’t spread out teams that can’t spread; it’s mean and I will be mean back to you on the ballot.

Speak up! I award speaker points for content, strategy, and structure more than talking pretty.Let's all play nice. Watch your rhetoric; anything racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, abelist, or transphobic will nuke your speaks. My speaks are generally higher than 26. 27-27.5 is average-proficient, 28 is awesome, 29 is " I really wanted to give you 30, but there was (blank) tiny issue". 29.5-30 means the round was pure beauty in motion.

RVI's: Ok, for whatever reason, this is like cilantro for most people in the debate community; they either think they're the best, most clever thing ever or that they're a horrible abomination. I really, seriously, don't have a strong opinion either way, I think it is very much a case by case situation.

K's: Feel more than free to be creative and unique, just make sure it makes sense. What I mean is that you should thoroughly understand what you are running, stay consistent with your framework, be able to handle the obvious questions it will incur. Back it up with analysis and justify why this is significant. It is always really obvious when somebody is running a case that was just handed to them by a coach or more senior competitor. I’m decently familiar with critical literature/arguments regarding Anthropocentrism, Ecofem, Indigeneity/Settler Colonialism, and Racial Positionality. I know little bits and pieces of other areas (like Disability Politics or Queer Theory – and a bunch of random stuff written by Marxist doctors on healthcare and neoliberalism; I had a weird summer in 2016.) and am more than happy to listen to whatever you want to run, I just might not be terribly familiar with the lit so make sure to clearly explain the thesis. Please feel free to ask me before the round if you want a clarification on my knowledge base. Furthermore, if you are critiquing somebody's rhetoric within the round and tell me that the role of the judge is to be a critical intellectual, don't bite into that rhetoric. It will end badly for you.
There are a few specific K's that I have more strict criteria for.
Nietzsche: Please for the love of all that is good in the world, don't run a Nietzsche K in front of me unless you have actually read some Nietzsche. All the bastardized embrace suffering stuff I hear all the time is not Nietzsche.
Give Back the Land/Decolonization: This can either be done really well or really poorly. A lot of the time, running this is pretty much just commodifying the suffering and exploitation and genocide of hundreds of Peoples for the ballot in a round. Please don't be one of those teams or I will drop you. Read “Decolonization is not a Metaphor” if you disagree with this and then think about what I said again. If you are running this case without any cards from Native authors, that is a serious paternalistic problem. It's also hard when the "plans" proposed don't leave room for biracial Native Americans, especially considering we have the highest "out-marriage" rates of any ethnicity. I don't wanna hear any "Noble Savage" type garbage. If you argue that we need to increase Indigenous knowledge production and all the stuff happening to Natives is really bad and oppressive and stuff, but you don't have a goddamn plan for tangibly reducing harm to people like me, stop talking. Things like rates of substance abuse, suicide, domestic violence, poverty,and cultural erasure have affected my life and my family and friends. THIS IS NOT A GAME TO ME. These are not arguments for your academic curiosity. These are real things that affect real people. I do not have the luxury to play with these concepts in academic abstraction, and I won't tolerate you doing so. If you want to argue in-round solutions, they better actually be solutions. None of this "we need to imagine a different government" BS. We have been imagining for a long time. If you are running this case to help rhetorically overthrow colonialist power structures and are actually representing Native voices, then you belong on the other half of the equation are running this case for the right reasons.

Also
Speed K's: Just have solid reasons for why your opponent spreading is abelist or exclusionary. If you have a disability that makes spreading either impossible for you to perform yourself or listen to/flow, if you have asked your opponent not to spread before the round, and your opponent still spreads, then yes absolutely run a speed K.

Quick thing on poetry- a lot of arguments I’ve heard against poetry being used in round are really classist and racist. I do not believe that poetry is only a tool of the elite and educated or that marginalized individuals who use it are traitor pawns of the ivory tower. Arguments that essentially boil down to “poetry is exclusionary because it’s bourgeoisie” are not going to work for me. Arguments that say poetry only embodies White ideals of beauty and that PoC poetry will inevitably be co-opted are viscerally offensive to me.
I won't drop you in the round if you run this, but I will drop the argument.

Narratives: Hell. Yes. I strongly believe narrative debate has an important role in asserting the voices of marginalized groups in academia. These are experiences and perspectives that the overwhelmingly wealthy white able cis/het male institutions of academia have isolated. Other authors publishing nuanced work on these topics can be rare, which is part of where narrartives come in to fill that gap. Narratives are NOT whining- narrative debate is a way for the debater to become a producer of knowledge. Talking about structural violence with first person language does not make these topics any less academic; somebody else does not need to study you for your problems to be worthy of being heard and debated.
That being said, if you are running a narrative – do NOT make sweeping assumptions about your opponents or judges, particularly in regards to things that nobody should have to feel forced to disclose about themselves to a room full of strangers, like mental health status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or a history of experiencing abuse/domestic violence. Your job is to attack power structures, and I have no tolerance for teams who invalidate their opponents' identities and their rights to display them how/when they choose to.

Please don't let the round turn into the Oppression Olympics. Don't let your args against narratives devolve into "actually, I am more oppressed than you because X " - narratives are to highlight structural violence, it's not personal. It is not about you, the debater running a narrative is an empiric to a larger argument that highlights particular systems of power. We shouldn't have to pretend like these systems don't apply to us in some way when we run cases, and at the end of the day, nobody is attacking YOU, they are indicting particular systems of power. Engage with the power structures in the round.

Each round is different, so these are just guidelines and if you have a question that this didn't answer, feel free to ask.
Good luck, have fun!

King Update:

Speaks are capped at a 27.5 for teams that don't send all case and rebuttal evidence before the speech

I debated for four years on the national circuit and now coach for Westlake

tldr stuff is bolded

Add me to the email chain: ilanbenavi10@gmail.com

General:

Tech>Truth with the caveat that truth to an extent determines tech. Claims like "the sky is blue" take a lot less work to win then "the government is run by lizards"

If you're clear I can handle up to 275 WPM but err heavily on the side of caution - you're probably not as clear as you think you are and I'm probably sleep-deprived. Slower = transcription, faster = paraphrasing; the prior is preferable for both of us

Post-Round as hard as you want - I'd obviously prefer an easygoing conversation over a confrontational back-and-forth but I know that emotions run high after rounds and can understand some spite

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

Part I - General

I'm not a stickler about extensions, especially when it comes to conceded arguments

I like impact turns and don't think you have to extend your opponents links if going for them

"No warrant” is a valid response to confusing and underdeveloped blips but I’m holding you to those two words, if they did read a warrant you can’t contest it in a later speech

Part II - Evidence

Smart analytics are great—blippy analytics are a headache

Read taglines if you are going fast. “Thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Use Gmail or Speechdrop, I've never been on a google doc for evidence exchange that wasn't unshared immediately after the round so I'm very skeptical of anyone that wants to use it

Send docs ALWAYS. It doesn't matter if your opps drop something if I didn't notice it either. Don't just send a doc before the speech, send a marked one after

Part III - Weighing

Weighing is important but totally optional, I'm perfectly happy to vote against a team that read 12 conceded pre-reqs but dropped 12 pieces of link defense on the arg they weighed

Probability weighing exists but shouldn't be an excuse to read new defense to case. It should be limited to general reasons why your link/impact is more probable ie. historical precedent

Link weighing is generally more important than impact weighing (links have to happen for impacts to even matter).

Make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene

Part IV - Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech

Defense isn't sticky — EVER. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there

I think defending case is the most difficult/impressive part of debate, so if half your frontlines are two word blips like "no warrant," "no context," and "we postdate," i'll be a little disappointed. I know the 2-2 our case-their case split has become less common over the years, but I guarantee you'll make more progress and earn higher speaks by generating in-depth answers to their responses

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

Theory:

I don't like theory debates unless the violation is blatant and the interp simple. Generic disclosure and paraphrasing arguments are fine, but the more conditions you add eg. "disclose in X-Y-Z circumstance specifically," the more skeptical I become and the lower your speaks go

I default to spirit > text, CI > R, No RVIs, Yes OCIs*, DTA

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure to do weighing between them

Don’t read blippy IVIs and then blow up on them — make it into a shell format

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win

Lots of judges like to project their preferences on common debate norms when evaluating a theory round. That's not me. I prefer comprehensive disclosure and cut cards, but I'll vote for theory bad, ridiculous I-meets and anything else u can think of and win (that "and win" bit is most important)

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. You must answer your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this)

Not a stickler about theory extensions — most LD/Policy judges would cringe at PF FYO’s dropping a team because they forgot to extend their interp word-for word the speech after it was read. Shells don’t need to be extended in rebuttal, only summary and final focus — I do expect all parts of the shell to be referenced in that extension

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, and reasonability can be very persuasive

K affs:

Do your thing but remember that I'm dumb and probably can't understand most of your evidence. Explain everything in more detail than you normally would, especially stuff like why the ballot is key or why fairness doesn't matter

Can be persuaded to disregard frwk w a compelling CI, impact turns, and general impact calc (prefer the first and last over the middle option), but you need to execute these strategies well. In a perfect K aff v Frwk debate, the neg wins every time

K:

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap. Please slow down and warrant things out

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable

I prefer it if you introduce these arguments the same way as is done in Policy and LD, which means on fiat topics speaking second and neg

I think K’s are at their best when they are egregiously big-stick and preferably topic-specific. They should link to extinction or turn/outweigh your opponents case on a more meta-level

I’ll weigh the case against the K unless told otherwise, though I think there are compelling arguments on both sides for whether this should be a norm

Theory almost always uplayers the K. You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments

FW:

I don’t understand anything except Util and some VERY BASIC soft-left stuff, but I’m open to listen to anything

Tricks:

Paradoxes, skep, etc are interesting in the abstract but I'd prefer you not read them

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF as best I can

Make sure you read actual presumption warrants. I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points for word efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends the happier your speaks will be.

Kempner '20 | Stanford '24

Email: b.10.benitez@gmail.com

or just facebook message me

4 years of PF, qualified to TOC twice

________________________________

23-24 update: I haven't thought about debate in a minute, so the likelihood I know the intricacies of your arguments is low. However, don't hold back, treat me as tech judge, ask any questions beforehand.

- I've thought about it more, read whatever you want to read. However, my standard for technical proficiency rises as the more technical an argument becomes. i.e. if you want to read non-topical arguments, you'd better make sure you're doing a near perfect job in the back half to win because I won't search for a path to the ballot for you unless it's obvious. TLDR: make our lives easier by having good summaries and finals, I won't do the work for you.

- my old paradigm is here. Lots of my thoughts are the same, just ask me.

- if look confused, i probably am

- GRAPEVINE 24: FLIGHT 2 FLIP + PREFLOW BEFORE ROUND.

General stuff

• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me

• if ur down to skip grand for 30 seconds more prep (during the time of grand), i'm down

• absent any offense in the round, i'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics

• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.

• A concession requires an implication of how the defense interacts with your argument not just "we concede to the delinks"

• discourse links are super sketch (i.e vote for us bc we introduced x issue into the round)

I debated in high school LD and PF and was a college Parli debater, so I have a good amount of experience. I was a quarter finalist in CA for LD and a TCFL State Qualifier in LD (if that matters).

LD is first and foremost a value debate. Be sure to keep that in mind.

- Be cordial to each other. There is no reason to be rude to your fellow competitors. For zoom competitors, that means no giggling or whispering when your mics are off. Treat it just like a normal round.

- Time yourselves and each other, please.

- I am fine with speed, but I do not like spreading. I can keep up but I think that it's poor practice and your speaks will be reduced.

- Sign posting is extremely important to me. Always tell me what contention you are talking about or responding to.

- It’s extremely important that you show a good understanding of the topic and you are not simply throwing out arguments that you think fit and reiterating them.

- While I am more of a traditional judge, I am open to progressive debate (K, T, Theory, ect.) but give substantial explanation.

- I love clash. Be sure to actually respond to your opponents arguments rather than just say they don't matter.

- Apologies for any weird faces, I am processing and writing notes!

For speech competitors:

- Do your thing, I have no strong preferences!

As a first time parent judge, my primary focus is on the clarity and persuasiveness of the arguments presented by the debaters. I will be looking for well-supported arguments that are logically and coherently presented. In addition, I will be evaluating the debaters on their ability to communicate effectively and respectfully with one another.

It is important to note that I am not familiar with debate theory or technical terminology, so I ask that debaters avoid using jargon and instead focus on explaining their arguments in clear and concise language. I also ask that debaters avoid spreading, or speaking quickly and excessively, as this can make it difficult for me to understand and evaluate their arguments.

In evaluating the round, I will prioritize the substantive arguments and evidence presented by the debaters, rather than procedural or technical considerations. I will be open to all relevant arguments and evidence, and will evaluate the round based on its overall persuasiveness.

Finally, I expect all debaters to adhere to the highest standards of civility and respect, and to avoid personal attacks or disrespectful behavior towards their opponents. I believe that debate is an opportunity to engage in civil and productive discourse, and I will be evaluating the round with that principle in mind.

Tech judge

Put me on the email chain pls: bhatnagartanishq@gmail.com

Quick summary,

Impact weighing is good, link weighing is better

Defense is sticky.

Theory and prog args: I think paraphrasing is good, disclosure is bad, etc, but I will evaluate all shells fairly whether or not they fit with my personal beliefs.

K's are fine, I'm not super experienced with it, but know what you are doing, and please have solvency

Make a Jojo Reference in any speech I will give you 30 speaks(real)

If you want a long version, look below(totally not stolen from William Pirone)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

* * * * *

If you have any questions about my paradigm, please feel free to ask me before the round! My paradigm has recently become egregiously long so just skim through the underlined text if you want the TL;DR.

General:

Tech >>> Truth. You can read any type of argument you want in front of me, as long as it contains warrants. I’ve read everything from politics DAs, tricks, round reports theory, riders, and consult Japan to “warming opens the Northwest Passage which prevents Hormuz miscalc”—do what you’re comfortable with.

Also,go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I won’t flow strictly off a doc but will take one in case I miss something/want to check for new arguments/implications. Please don’t confuse words per minute with arguments per minute – clear spreading is orders of magnitude easier to flow than a slightly less speedy blip-storm of arguments.

~ ~ ~ ~ Substance ~ ~ ~ ~

This is by far the most fun to judge. Below are some of my preferences/rules when it comes to tech substance debate, listed from the debate norms most specific to me to the least.

Part I - General Substance:

If parts of your argument are uncontested,you do not have to extend warrants for conceded internal linksin summary and final focus. Definitely extend uniqueness, links, and impacts though.

I like impact turns. A lot. Read them.

You also don't have to extend your opponent's link if you're going for impact turns, but you can if you want to.

Stolen from Nathaniel Yoon’s paradigm:I will disregard and penalize "no warrant/context" responses on their own. Pair this with any positive content (your own reasoning, weighing, example, connection to another point, etc), and you're fine, just don't point out the lack of something and move on.

I really value word efficiency– do this well, and you will be rewarded.

"Who what when where why" is not a responseand if your opponents point it out they get auto 30s.

Part II - Evidence:

Smart analytics are great—but please add empirics/warrants to them. Do not dump blippy analytics, ever.

Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseread taglines if you are going fast. I beg of you. In case, rebuttal, everything. No, “thus” and “specifically” don’t count.

Also, please don’t put analytical warrants in tags unless your evidence backs it up. If you pull up with something along the lines of “because a revoked Article 9 would cause a Chinese state collapse and the re-emergence of the bubonic plague, Shale-13 of Brookings concludes: revising the constitution would be unwise,” I will laugh but also be very sad.

Please label email chains adequately. Ex. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”

Whether or not the tournament is onlineI will require an email chain for every round, evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive argument you must send a doc before you begin; otherwise, sending a doc will not be required. Don’t send Google Docs and then delete them after the round, send either a word doc or paste the text into the body of the email.

Part III - Weighing

Weighing = great. Do it.

You still need to win sufficient offense on your weighed argument though—please don’t try to kick out of terminal defense through things like try-or-die weighing, I’m more than happy just voting on one team’s argument having the higher risk than the other team’s argument, especially if both terminalize to extinction.

—Weighing §1—

Impact weighing is good, link weighing is best.

Don't use "probability weighing" as a chance to read new defense. Probability = strength of link in my view, if you win an argument and warrant it then it is probable. General reasons why your argument is a better link, i.e. actor analysis and historical precedent are fantastic, just don’t use this to insert 27 new responses.

Clarity/contextualization/strength of link are not weighing mechanisms – just explain why your argument is more important than your opponents’ assuming that both sides have won their offense.

—Weighing §2—

In almost all circumstances, link weighing is way more important than impact weighing. Don’t just say extinction outweighs and move on—do comparative analysis on why your link is better(larger, faster, more probable, etc).

On a similar note, make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs—otherwise, I will be very confused and probably have to intervene. This also means that 1FF can read new link weighing mechanisms to resolve clashing prerequisite arguments, as long as they weren’t conceded in first summary.

Part IV - Defense:

Frontline in second rebuttal—everything you want to go for needs to be in this speech. 4 minutes is 4 minutes, read whatever offense you want in both constructives/rebuttals.

Defense isn't sticky. That said, I am very lenient towards blippy defense extensions in first summary if second rebuttal doesn't frontline something at all, just make sure it's there.

Pleasemake frontlining substantive. What I mean by that is actually reading warrants/evidence when frontlining instead of saying “no internal link/warrant/context” and arguments along those lines. Technical responses are fine when paired with substantive responses, but don't read 2 minutes of "1.) no warrant 2.) no impact 3.) no context 4.) the evidence is miscut 5.) we postdate…"

~ ~ ~ ~ Progressive ~ ~ ~ ~

All arguments in this section are fair game, I’ve read basically everything you can think of at some point.

Theory:

Theory is ok, I read it a lot my junior year. We usually read disclosure/paraphrase/round reports, but I'm good with anything as long as it's warranted. I also won’t be biased when judging theory, so feel free to respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, impact turns, etc, are all fine with me.

I prefer techy substance rounds thoughso speaks might take a slight dip if you do this in prelims.

—Theory §1—

Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good.(Tanishq here: This is objectively wrong). No, I will not hack for either of these shells.

If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I’m happy to give comments and help as much as I can.

Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counter interp... if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory should be read immediately after the violation. Eg. if you’re speaking first disclosure must be in your constructive for me to evaluate it. However, I am willing to vote off of paraphrasing theory read after rebuttal if your interpretation is that people shouldn't paraphrase in rebuttal. You MUST extend your own shell in rebuttal if it was read in 1st constructive; you must frontline your opponent's shell in the speech after it was read (unless there is a theoretical justification for not doing this).

Substance crowd-out is most definitely an impact, andreasonability can be very persuasive– just read this off of your CI or as a turn on their interpretation. Please still read a counterinterp.

—Theory §2—

I default to spirit > text,CI > R,No RVIs,Yes OCIs*,DTA.

If there are multiple shells introduced, make sure todo weighing between them.

If you read disclosure theory, you must have good disclosure norms—I will probably check.

I will never vote on an out-of-round violation other than disclosure/round reports and the like.

Don’t read blippy IVI sand then blow up on them — make it into a shell format.

Theory unaccessible is not a fantastic argument—there are tons of resources out there and if you need more help/advice feel free to email me. It is just like responding to anything else.

Theory cards, in most cases, are overrated and are often just written by former debaters and will be evaluated on the same level as any other standard/argument. This is different from topicality interpretations and impact weighing/cards against Ks.

*OCIs good is the one thing in my paradigm that you cannot alter with warrants. If you win that your shell is better under a model of competing interpretations, or win turns to your opponents’ interp, you win.

K:

I will evaluate kritiks but no promises I'm good at doing so. I'm most familiar with security/cap/Baudrillard. For anything else please slow down and warrant things out.

No paraphrased Ks—this is non-negotiable.

If you read the mythical Bayesianism kritik, I will give you 30 speaks, especially if you can point to specific links from their case.

If you are reading substance + pre-fiat framing (or a topical link to a kritik in any way)you must still win your topical links to access the pre-fiat layer. I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.

Rejection alts/ROTBs are sus, read an actual one.

Also, theory almost always uplayers the K.You should be reading off of cut cards and open-source disclosing when reading these arguments.

Perms are OP if you use them effectively. I like when people shotgun them.

CPs:

I will begrudgingly evaluate a plan/counterplan debate. This obviously differs based on the resolution (“on balance” phrasing is weird), but for fiated topics i.e., “Japan should revise Article 9 of its constitution,” they’re probably fair game.

Also, totally open to theory against these– just make the arguments.

FW:

Read whatever you want here, I won't be biased one way or another. Extinction reps, Kant,anything goes.

Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Tricks:

If you must, just make sure the other team is cool with them first. Theory against these is smart too.

Make tricks fun, arguments like a prioris or “eval after the 1ac” are meh butparadoxes, skep, etc are great.

Head to the presumption sectionsince it’ll probably be necessary for these rounds.

~ ~ ~ ~ Extra ~ ~ ~ ~

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise,I default to the first speaking team. Independent of presumption, I understand that going first in tech rounds puts you at a significant disadvantage, so I will defend 1FF with my life.

Make sure you read actual presumption warrants.I won't evaluate anything in FF, so make sure to make these warrants in summary, or else I will just default to whoever spoke first.

Preferences:

LARP - 1

Theory/T - 2

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 4

Phil - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5

Performance - 5

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, I think it's educational.

Speaks:

I usually give pretty good speaks, and assign them based on clarity and in-round strategy, with bonus points forword efficiency and humor. In general, I’m also a speedy person and like to do things quickly, so the sooner the round ends and the less prep you steal, the higher your speaks will be!

If you want a boost:

+0.2 speaks if you're disclosed and you tell me and it’s OS

+0.2 speaks if you don’t paraphrase (+0.2 for rebuttal too)

+0.2 speaks if you read the Keck/Dowd combo

+0.1 speaks if your cards are Times New Roman with green highlighting

+0.1 speaks if you have round reports

I will give you a 30 if you readALL defense/turns in second constructive(first rebuttal must frontline if this happens).

If it’s a prelim and both teams agree before the round, we can switch the resolution to a different one– it can be a previous topic or something new entirely.

I tend to vote based primarily on the flow, with a secondary emphasis on voting issues presented by the competitors. I look for solid argumentation of the ideas themselves, preferring if the competitors avoid semantic/definition based debating except when disagreement on definitions is crucial to the argument. In terms of evidence I give the greatest weight to source and recency, and will tend to evaluate competing evidence based solely on those two factors. On the point of evidence, please include me in the email chain at "bossegg@comcast.net". In terms of ethics, barring outright inappropriate behaviour I tend to not give a great amount of weight to decorum. In that same vein, I have no problem with speaking faster than normal conversational speed, as long as the speed doesn't interfere with comprehension, and I encourage aggressive argumentation as long as it doesn't reach the point of becoming inappropriate. I will disregard any argument which has been shown by the opponent to be fallacious, however fallacious arguments which are not identified as such by the opponent will remain on the flow. The same goes for evidence, guidance I have gotten is that the rules on leaving judge knowledge outside the round include the possibility of knowing what some specific sources may say. If your opponent misrepresents evidence, it is your responsibility to be the one to raise that issue, as my understanding of NSDA rules is that I cannot be the one to do so even if I am aware the source says something else. As an example, if your opponent says the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution covers quartering of soldiers, if you don't bring up that that is false I have to weigh the round as if it were true.

I am a parent judge, and have a PhD in molecular biology. Please speak on the slower side, and be friendly!

Email Chain: genesisbritz1313@gmail.com

General

Please DO NOT call me by my first name. I prefer being addressed as “judge” or “Ms”. If you want to throw in my last name after any of those two, that’s fine as well.

I competed in Lincoln-Douglass and Congress for all four years of high school and was captain of my debate team. In addition, I have experience judging LD, PF, and CX.

Doc Sharing

Make sure you share your docs with me before we start the round. If you make any edits to your doc, feel free to send those as well. I prefer to use Speech Drop but I’ll agree to an email chain if that works best for all parties. PLEASE be prepared for ANYTHING. Technology likes to betray us at times so print out your cases, bring a charger, or multiple devices. Anything to ensure a smooth round for yourself and everyone involved.

Speed

I prefer clarity over speed as I have yet to judge a debater who knows how to spread properly. However, if you are using speed to promote clash- great! If you are spreading during a rebuttal or any portion of the debate that I can not read- you will lose speaker points. If you are not comprehensible, I will most likely vote against you. I will tolerate spreading during AC/NC ,but if I am reading your doc with you instead of notetaking, it is more difficult to flow.

If your opponent clearly states they are not comfortable with spreading for any reason(ex: hearing impaired) and you do not adapt/adjust, you will get the lowest points possible.

Speaker Points

I base speaker points on two ideals: quality of presentation and quality of argument. Part of doing well in any speech competition is the ability to present professionally. Standing up(unless you’re physically unable),tone of voice, appropriate vocabulary, hand motions and clarity will all affect the amount of speaker points you receive. The quality of your argument depends on strategy and structure. Tip: assume that your judge knows absolutely nothing about the resolution, so be creative, explicit on your stance and thurley explain your argument. If I have to go back and read cards to get the gist of your argument, you're not doing too well. I also flow cross as it helps me determine how well you know your argument based on questions you ask and answers given.

LD Specific

LD is based on morality. Neither the aff or neg have to come up with a solution to the issue at hand. Framework is extremely pivotal, as a bad framework will cost you so make sure it's solid. I love a good philosophy-based debate but please explain it well. I may not be familiar with the scholarship of every philosophy out there. A traditional route is great. Make sure you have a good value(literally anything cool) and a criterion(something to weigh value on). Your criterion is the heart as it provides the function. A criterion should be a well-explained phrase, not just one word.

PROGRESSIVE

I understand that students want to add a theatric flare to their speech but if you are going to yell, slam your hand or things on the table, I am NOT the judge for you. You will not yell at me. Also, do not throw the resolution out the door if you don't have any warrants.

Theory and philosophy are great as long as its explained well.

PF Specific

NOT EVERYTHING LEADS TO EXTINCTION.

All in all,

Offensive remarks/language will NOT be tolerated and will be reported. I usually give verbal RDF but refer to your ballots either way.

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com- This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will most likely not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater, but don't use speed. It ruins any persuasive appeal, and the round boils down to strategic errors instead of any real substantive analysis. I will dock speaker points.

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning, not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event, so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading, but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments, otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech, which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says, and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

29-30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29/below: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28/below: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27/below: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however, analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26/below: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

I am a parent judge with little experience. Please speak clearly and be explicit with your argument so that I can follow the points you are trying to make.

Hello :)

Most important takeaways from this paradigm: Be nice, have fun, be fair, and be accessible. This can be an intimidating activity and we shouldn’t discourage people from participating by being rude, homophobic, racist, sexist, etc. I will not tolerate anything of that sort! While these are my preferences, I don't believe in absolutes so run what you want and make it your job to convince me! Also if you are doing speech you really don't need to read any of this, just be confident, be clear, and be yourself!

Again, I think you should run the arguments you feel most comfortable with regardless of what I think, but judge adaptability is important as well so if you do want to know a little bit about me then here it goes! TLDR, I love lay debate, I love fast tech debate, I can evaluate both and I don't put any bias onto either style of debate.

Background

I did parli in High School, with Newbury Park High School (go Panthers!). I currently do Parli, Extemp, IPDA, Original Speech and sometimes PF in College for UCSD (Go Tritons!). I have judged all formats of debate at advanced levels including Parli, LD, PF, and Policy.

I love politics domestically and internationally, and I love to see good comparisons to different countries with regards to different policies (comparative politics major/nerd lol).

General Notes

Tabula Rasa is not real. I am flow and obviously I will try my hardest to isolate myself to just use in round info, but I think it is a disservice if we try and pretend that we can throw all our beliefs, identities, and values out of the door for anything, including debate.

I love to see direct clash in arguments! Please signpost well, organization is key to my ballot.

I don’t like giving out my email (sorry lol) so if there’s a speech drop instead that is much preferred.

Speed

If I'm flowing on my computer I can handle a decent amount of speed, including some spreading if I have your speeches (like 350 wpm abt)but faster and I may not catch everything. If I'm on paper I may not catch everything. If both sides are chill with spreading I can hang if I have your speeches, but I don't look kindly to teams that spread their opponents out of the round. Even if you are spreading, PLEASE slow down for tags and important stuff tho. I try to make it visually clear when you’ve lost me so may be aware of that. Also, if I call clear/slow plz respect that.

Case Debate

Love case debate! Give me clear and strong links and good impact calculus (magnitude, probability, reversibility, timeframe).

Theory

I like theory/topicality of all sorts, I just want some level of proven abuse. If you want me to vote on Theory/T you should almost certainly collapse to it in the end.

Kritiks

Go for it! But also do not assume I have read any of your lit or anything so explain things clearly. I won't vote on something I don't understand. Framework is key!

Speaker Points

I think speaker points are really hard and they are so subjective, so always take them with a grain of salt (not just from me but any judge haha). That being said, I try and use a consistent scale. 27 is my baseline, anything below a 26 is reserved for misconduct or doing something harmful in the round, 28 is great, 29 is excellent, and 30 is not only a stellar performance but you had great strategy with flawless execution. I do not think a 30 should be impossible, so I am not averse to giving out some 30s, but I do think the bar should be set really high.

Final Send Off

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round about my paradigm. I always welcome questions after the round once my ballot is submitted as well! Just remember that I am also human and am not a divine perfect arbiter of debate. Best of luck!!!

Pronouns: (she/her)

Preferred name: Kat

I would like to be on the email chain: cazeaupatricia@gmail.com

*****IF YOU READ/REFERENCE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT/VIOLENT CONTENT I AM NOT THE JUDGE FOR YOU.*****

Debated at Liberty, and I debated policy for 4 years in high school (shout out to Long Branch High!).

My credentials ig:

- 2021 NDT third team

- 2022 NDT First Round (TOP TEN YERRRR)

- First Liberty invite to the Kentucky Round Robin

- Long Branch High volunteer Policy Coach

- Judged Policy, LD, Parli, PF, and speech events

Kritiks:

I'm a black woman with an immigrant background. Do with that what you will.

If you're a K team, I'm a huge fan of K's! I'm familiar with: Cap K, Thoreau, Antiblackness, Afropess, Afrofuturism, Orientalism, Bataille, Nietzsche, Fem, Baudrillard, and I'm sure I'm missing others. Just bc I'm comfortable with these, don't be sure I'll know all of your buzz-words and theory. Explanations are good, detailed explanations are best.

If you win the following, you'll win the debate:

1.) Give me the Link. Just because I consider the truth doesn't mean that you could assert that the Aff is racist, sexist, neoliberal, or whatever without a specific link. If you can prove to me why the foundations of the Aff are suspect and make your impacts worse, you've done your job and the link debate is yours.

2.) Impact weighing. I need clash and impact comparison. Sure, tell me what your impact is and why it matters, but explain why it matters in relation to your opponent's impacts (ie: structural violence is happening now, extinction is far off. Immediacy outweighs).

3.) Alt explanation. I gotta know what it does. In explaining the Alt, you need to explain how it's different from the SQUO, and why a permutation wouldn't immediately resolve your impacts and the links. If you don't need to win the Alt, just gotta explain why not.

4.) Judge Instruction. Give it to be straight, what do you want me to do? What is my role in the discussion/in this competitive space? What are the implications of the ballot?

Do these things, and you're golden. :^)

K-Affs:

Do most of the same stuff as above, only difference is that you should have substantive answers to framework. Again, don't just assert that FW is sexist, racist, whatever WITHOUT a reason why. I jive with K-Affs, and I think performances could be powerful. Just make sure everything is done with a purpose.

Your counter-interpretation is the framing for my ballot as well as the model of debate you advocate for. I'll vote on any, esp if the other team drops it.

ROB's are muy importante in a framework debate.

I'm guilty of wildly-long overviews-- but for your sake pls no more than 2 minutes. Pls.

Policy, because I can't abandon my first love:

I love me some tasty DA's and CP's, as long as the internal link chain makes sense.

I'm sympathetic to Condo as an arg if it's 6+ off. Anything below that and you're on your own, my friend.

Impact turns are cool. I'll vote for anything as long as it isn't death/extinction good and structural violence/racism good.

Framework:

1.) FAIRNESS ISN'T AN IMPACT! It's an internal link to education.

2.) Clash is the most convincing impact to me.

3.) Predictability is sort of a toss-up. If you didn't prepare for Cap or other K's that you knew would come with the topic after the first few tournaments, that's on you. But I will vote for it if you tell me how predictability makes you all better debaters.

Please do not put me in any T or Theory debates. I can't do it.

***PF***

>Impact calc is MUY IMPORTANTE!!! Weigh between your and your opponent's impacts, please. Explain why you outweigh.

>Ask QUESTIONS in Cross-Fire! This is two-fold: 1. "[explains case]... what do you say to that?" isn't a question, and 2. Being POLITE when asking questions is key. Please don't bully the other team.

>Tell me how to write my ballot, and what you're going to win on in this debate.

>I'm a policy person so I don't see a problem with counterplans in PF. This being said, "This is PF, counterplans aren't allowed!" isn't an argument. Attack it instead.

>In addition, speed isn't a problem for me. But do recognize that if the other team makes it a voter, you have to justify your use of speed in that instance.

>And please, PLEASE, answer as many of the opponent's arguments WHILE extending your case. Chances are they didn't answer everything you said.

>Finally... have funsies. :^)

If you're racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, rude, or discriminatory in any way toward your partner or opponent, I will stop the round and your speaks are getting docked. Behaviors like that make the debate space less hospitable. And, yes, that includes extremely 'punking' the other team.

Rhetoric is a voter. If it frames the debate and it's a big enough deal to potentially ruin your debate experience, I'll vote on it.

HAVE FUN!

Hello! Please do not go too fast and prioritize clarity. I value argument and style equally. Approach each round as an opportunity to learn and with respect for your opponents. Also, remember to extend your points properly, otherwise they won't be flowed. Finally, please weigh so I can see the comparative between the impacts presented in the round. Good luck!

Include me on the email chain: manjusrivats@gmail.com

I am a lay parent judge. Please talk clearly and slowly. I will try to follow along each argument, but whoever has the clearest overall narrative is who I will vote for. Also be polite to each other.

I'm a first-time parent judge, here's a couple things to note:

• I don't understand debate "jargon" and the like, don't use it.
• Please go slow, I can't vote for you if you speak too quickly for me to listen.
• Thoroughly explain your arguments, run me through your reasoning for everything.
• Don't cram too much into one speech, less is more.
• No racism, sexism, or anything related to hate speech; it won't be tolerated and you'll be dropped.

I'm a very inexperienced parent judge. My daughter is writing my paradigm for me, but it stands by what I plan to vote off of.

Truth >>> tech. I'll vote on what arguments seem to make the most sense and I am most convinced by.

WHAT NOT TO DO:

Do not spread, or I will probably miss something you say.

Don't be a jerk in round. This includes being mean to your opponents during crossfire, in round, abusively taking prep, lying, or being racist/homophobic/sexist etc.

WHAT TO DO:

Explain the terms you use! I do not have background knowledge on the topic, so I won't understand things which are not common knowledge.

Send me your case docs, especially if you plan to go fast. Also, add me to any email chains you create. My email is jschang62@aol.com.

GENERAL NOTES:

I do not flow cross ex; if you want what you say to appear in my flow, please bring it up in your later speeches. However, I will notice if you are rude in it.

SPEAKS BREAKDOWN:

< 26.5 : You did something which made the debate experience unpleasant. Refer to the previous parts of my paradigm to understand what I mean by that.

26.5-27 : You were an actively bad speaker. You probably, obviously, cost the round for your team.

27-28: You were not particularly good. There were obvious flaws.

28-28.6 : You were good. Nothing particularly to be commented on.

28.6-29.5 : You were very good. I was impressed by how well you spoke.

29.5-30 : Best speaker I've seen in my life.

I am a lay judge and will vote based on who explains their argument most clearly and weighs the best. I don't like when contestants spread. Being respectful and clear are my main priorities.

Greeting Debaters,

I have in speech and debate tournament for the past eight years. Starting in college, I often participated in debate tournament in public forum as a debater. I have been judging debate tournament for the past six years throughout the New York City region in Public Forum and Policy Debate. One of my favorites parts of judging is the opportunity to listen to both sides of the story.

1. Debate Style:

• I am comfortable with various debate styles, including Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum. I hold a particular regard for well-structured and organized arguments.

2. Speed and Clarity:

• I prefer debate that is clear and well-structured at a medium pace.

3. Framework and Resolution:

• A well-structured framework that explains both sides of the issues. I prioritize effective refutation and clash between the affirmative and negative positions.

4. Evidence Quality:

• I prioritize well-researched and credible evidence. Clear citations and the ability to explain the significance of evidence are of utmost importance.

5. Creativity and Innovation:

• My approach in debate tournament is to be as creative as possible in convincing different sides of the argument. I prioritize thinking outside the box and not just what is stated on paper.

6. Cross-Examination:

• I value effective cross-examination that seeks to clarify and challenge key points.

Overall, please be respectful of your peers. My focus is to support you to have the best argument and for giving an equal chance for both the affirmative and negative positions and creating an educational focus for all debaters. I look forward to judging your next debate.

I am a lay judge, so PLEASE DON'T SPREAD. I won't flow/vote off of what I can't understand.

I prefer unique arguments over stock arguments.

Extend all arguments in summary and final focus and make it clear why you win the debate.

Three things I look for in 2nd half debate:

1. Frontlining: This is extremely important.

2. Weighing: Be sure to use comparative weighing instead of just saying you outweigh. Also explain why (i.e. We outweigh based on magnitude vs. we outweigh on magnitude because saving lives is more important than saving the economy.)

3. Extend your responses to your opponents case.

4. Do not be rude in cross.

Once again, do not spread.

Have fun!

First year debate parent. Good pace and concise speaking will earn points. I will note if you haven't responded to an argument. Your style is just as important as your argument. Rate of delivery is important along with enunciation. The worst thing that can happen is that the debaters have great points to make but the judge is distracted with the speed and can’t hear the debaters. Looking for clearly linked facts to the impact of resolution. Avoid too many arguments or facts and stick to a few well established ones that would make much more impact and should help with speed as well.

My background: I am a former CEDA debater (1987-89) and CEDA coach (1990-93) from East Tennessee State University. Upon my retirement in August 2021 I've judged numerous at numerous debate tournaments for PF, LD, IDPA, Parli, and Big Questions (mostly PF and LD). (FYI, when I participated in CEDA it was quasi-policy, not true policy like it is today.)

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I think it is especially important to make sure cases are comprehensible. I look at speech docs if something only if evidence is questioned. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed. Please keep all this in mind if you normally utilize speedy delivery.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. If you are debating topicality on the neg you need to provide a counter definition and why I should prefer it to the aff.

The rounds: Racism/sexism etc. will not be tolerated. Rudeness isn’t appreciated either. I do not interject my own thoughts/opinions/judgements to make a decision, I only look at what is provided in the round itself. Re: criteria, I want to hear what the debaters bring forward and not have to come up with my own criteria to judge the round. My default criteria is cost/benefit analysis. I reserve the right to call in evidence. (Once I won a round that came down to a call for evidence, so, it can be important!) As far as overall judging, I always liked what my coach used to say – “write the ballot for me”. Debaters need to point out impacts and make solid, logical arguments. I appreciate good weighing and I will weigh the arguments that carried through to the end of the round more heavily than arguments that are not. Let me know what is important to vote on in your round and why. Sign posting/numbering arguments is appreciated and is VERY important to me; let me know where you plan to go at the top of your speech and also refer back to your roadmap as you go along.

Cross Examination: a good CX that advances the round is always valued. If someone asks a question, please don’t interrupt the debater answering the question. I don’t like to see a cross ex dominated by one side.

In most rounds I will keep back up speaking time and prep time.

I hope to see enjoyable and educational rounds. You will learn so many valuable skills being a debater! Good luck to all participants!

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 flip and 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 North & Lakeville South 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 judge the debate you want to have. Go at whatever speed you prefer - I enjoy fast AND slow rounds as long as the warranting is good. A conceded blip barely means anything to me. I want to see a well executed collapse strategy with good cohesion between summary and final focus. Probably not the best judge for theory or kritiks, but I've listened to and enjoyed both when done well. If you plan to do either, please read the more detailed sections below. I'll give an RFD after the round.

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'll drop you with lowest speaks allowed by the tournament for racism, sexism, transphobia, etc.
• I can probably keep up with whatever speed you plan to go. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity or warranting 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 do so if absolutely necessary to check evidence.
• Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.

Evidence Issues:

• Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards are the only way to present evidence.
• 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.

Specific Preferences:

• I think this should go without saying in 2024, but 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.
• 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'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. I do really enjoy war scenarios that are intricate and specific, probably much better than a lot of other extinction scenarios.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates, like even a little bit. 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 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.
• Debates that seek to establish much narrower interpretations to frame your opponents out of the debate are not debates I would like to judge as they generally feel like a waste of time.
• 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.
• I am not sympathetic to answers that amount to whining/complaining about having to participate in a theory debate. These are not arguments. If your coach requires you to do x norm (doesn't let you disclose, etc.), they should be preparing you to defend x norm in round.
• not a fan of RVIs
• or IVIs for that matter
• 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.
• But teams debating in the varsity division at big national circuit tournament who paraphrase and/or don't disclose should probably be prepared for theory debates.

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 will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical. I have read a lot of cap and IR theory, and I think these debates are very fascinating. Critical arguments rooted in rejection of the aff or defending the resolution are debates I generally enjoy.
• 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. If I can't articulate the kritik back to you in my rfd, it's not something I'm going to feel comfortable voting for.
• 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. K lit is very interesting, and getting a good understanding of it requires going beyond reading the bolded text of cards cut by someone else.
• 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 have just as frequently voted for k turns + extended case offense outweighs as I have for the k itself. I'm still kind of figuring out how I feel about this with the more K rounds I judge, but I think this rule doesn't apply with non-topical Ks that do nothing with the topic. T is probably a pretty effective way to answer these arguments, although I do not want theory to come at the cost of reading solvency answers and such.

Pet Peeves:

• Paraphrasing.
• Long evidence exchanges - just send docs.
• I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and 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. Literally any school can be a "small school" depending on what metric you use.
• 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.
• Tricks are cheating and impossible to resolve fairly. I am not a fan of arguments with the sole purpose of trying to avoid clash in the debate. This is probably one of the most uneducational decisions you could make in the round.
• I think "kicking the lay judge" on panels is unstrategic and unfun - volunteer parent judges are a necessary part of this activity in order for tournaments to run, and judge adaptation is an important skill learned in debate, plus I have very often watched the decision in the round come down to the lay judge because the two "techs" disagree.
• In round issues of safety are things that should be resolved out of round via the tournament's tab staff and ideally equity committee. If someone feels genuinely unsafe, I do not think that should be something that is debated about.

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 third/fourth/fifth 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.

I'm a parent judge who values confidence, well-built contentions, and professionalism in a round. I look forward to judging you and good luck!
I prefer to hear the sentence clearly and not rush. Speak slowly and legibly.

I like arguments based on logic as opposed to only numbers. Use numbers to substantiate your logic

Use cards to substantiate your research. Submit your cards please

Explicitly mention number of major cases and minor cases that you are making

Hey cool cats!

If you use any type of theory, I will drop you, even if the other side may not win as many points. Theory is inequitable and isn't real debate.

If you are condescending or bigoted, I will eviscerate you.

Please speak at a human pace. You may be a robot, but I am not... yet.

Use real sources and cite your evidence. I do not endorse plagiarism... even if that's what you rely on to pass AP English.

Fabricating evidence is dumb, don't do it... even if the mainstream media does.

Weighing is important. Don't make it my job to weigh you... I'm not your doctor.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE use a balance of logic and evidence, 

Cross is not the time to give another speech. Let's keep this train movin'...

And finally, for the love that is all good and holy, just have some fun. You are in high school this one round will not matter two weeks from now! Seriously, if you can't have fun, then maybe it's time to reevaluate your life.

General:

I did PF in high school, qualled to GTOC 2x, currently attending UC Berkeley.

Im tech. I have a writing disability which makes me not able to flow too fast. Please read <= 720 words, makes my life so much easier and ill be a better judge that way.

email: abyan.das@gmail.com

Specifics:

1. Second rebuttal must frontline both offense and defense. First summary must extend defense.

2. rebuttals responsive to actual warrants will be rewarded with speaks

3. signpost, it will boost your speaks and is like essential to me

4. Don't like theory and Ks too much, you can run it but id prefer substance.

5. The easiest way to win in front of me is by doing good, strategic weighing and lots of it.

6. The argument that wins the weighing/framing is what I will evaluate first, please give me a reason to prefer your weighing over your opponents (i.e. better link in to the chosen weighing mechanism, meta weighing, short-circuit, link-in, or best of all prereq). if there is no comparative weighing done, I default to strength of link / magnitude > time frame > probability.

7. do funny stuff in round i.e funny contention names and you will be rewarded with speaks

My tip to winning my ballot: WEIGH WEIGH PLEASE GOD WEIGH

also collapse and extend please, write my ballot in final focus

I am in my second year competing in college APDA :)

theovdatta@gmail.com

I did some PF

Here is my full paradigm if you care to read it, otherwise just ask me questions before round

postrounding is good, do it if you feel the vibe is right

update on theory: I default reasonability and won't change that stance. I will not evaluate CIs>reasonability, so if you read theory, don't read it this part of meta-theory, and be prepared for some subjectivity in evaluation. 99% of the time, debates will still come down to who is winning the warrants/weighing, I just want the room to maneuver in RFD. Additionally, No RVIs doesn't mean you can drop offense on your opponent's CIs, so don't try to implicate it that way - I will not buy this implication.

update on communication: I won't STOP you from speaking to your partner while they are giving a speech, but please don't do it. I will dock speaks, and I have never seen it been done well enough to justify both the perceptual loss and the interruption in thought process. Just do what I did when my partner missed an argument – write it big on paper, and hold it up for them to see.

update on speed: I did a lot of debate and I can flow very well. With that being said, I will not flow off of the doc (I think its a bad norm). Take this advice as you will.

Hi I am Malcolm. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Newton South, Strath Haven, Hunter College HS, and Edgemont. I have been judging pretty actively since 2017. I started in public forum (where I often am to be found), but have coached and judged circuit LD and Policy from time to time. I went to college at Swarthmore, where I studied philosophy and history. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke! I am a staunch advocate of whimsy in all its forms!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! BOTH malcolmcdavis@gmail.com AND nuevadocs@gmail.com

Pursuant to tournament policies (where applicable) (glenbrooks 24) I will be happy to use https://speechdrop.net/ I think speechdrop is a good choice for elim rounds, so spectators get docs as well. In rounds with spectators, I expect the debaters will offer to put the spectators on the email chain or allow them to view the speechdrop. If debaters do not ask spectators if they would like to be on the email chain, I will.

In general I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) primarily by listening rather than following along on the doc, but do not let me slow you down. DO let your opponents slow you down respect clears from them more than from me.

I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. Finally, I have an obligation to ensure this space is educational and welcoming (I will not allow teams to 'request' spectators not flow on laptops, for example.) I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. if you are using google docs, please save your file as a.docx before sending it to the email chain. Google docs are unreliable with tournament wifi, and make it harder for your opponent to examine your evidence. PDFs are bad too (your opponent has a right to clear your formatting and read the very small text of your cards) (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before). All forms of documents with any kind of restrictions on editing or viewing are unacceptable forms of evidence sharing.

Each paradigm below is updated and moved to the top when I attend a tournament as a judge in that event, but feel free to scroll through all of them if you want a well rounded view on how I judge.

he/him

----

PF Paradigm (updated for durham 25):

Judging paradigm for PF.

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate. Note that I flow card names and tags and organize my flow thereby, so I would appreciate you extending evidence by name. Also, I just simply have never judged a round where the quantifications or lack thereof have been the deciding factor, do with this info what you will but probably don't triumphantly extend "this is not quantified!!!!" as your only piece of summary defense with me judging.

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch.

I am happy to evaluate a k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. If your critical approach makes interesting and careful use of difficult literature, I will be overjoyed to judge your round and happy to give high speaker points. If you engage a critical argument in good faith and do so meaningfully (ie, setting asid most procedurals, reading some competing evidence on methods questions, making a more robust permutation claim than 'pdb') You will similarly enjoy high speaker points. One day, interesting KvK throwdowns will happen in this activity, and we will all learn lots from these different sides of the library.

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am largely uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure, and am troubled by the ways in which theory debates sometimes trivialize questions of 'safety' and 'accessibility' which are almost always under explained and under warranted.

That said, I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully!

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

--

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Guattari, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging cx. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

---| Notes on speech , updated in advance of NSDA nationals 24

Speech is very cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines.

I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me, word play tends to be my favorite form of humor in speeches.

Remember to include some humanity in your more analytic speeches, I tend to rank extemp or impromptu speeches that make effective use of candor (especially in the face of real ambiguities) above those that remain solidly formal and convey unreasonable levels of certitude.

---

Pronouns: She/they/theirs

Please add both emails to the email chain: Naomidavis2023@gmail.comlakevilledocs@googlegroups.com

Experience:

• Debated in PF for Lakeville North High School, 2019-2023
• Currently attend UC San Diego

Edited 9/7/24:

(I was coached by Maddie Cook so my paradigm and preferences will be very similar to hers)

I would normally consider myself a tech/flow judge but I know nothing about your resolution and I haven't judged in a LONG time so please treat me like a lay judge, thanks.

If you want me to vote for you the bare minimum is that you have to extend a warrant, a link, and an impact that's comparatively weighed against the other teams. Whatever you want me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. I think evidence ethics are also pretty important, so reading a card that's fake or horribly miscut will not work in your favor. If you're in a round and notice something is weird with the other side's evidence, call it out in your next speech. If I think it's bad enough, I'll strike it from the flow during my decision or possibly drop the team if it's fake evidence.

I'm okay with some speed, but I'm an old woman with arthritis so no spreading. I'll clear or slow you if I'm having issues. With this in mind, I really do prefer slower debates that emphasize well-warranted arguments over fast and blippy debates (especially when I don't have experience judging the topic).

Tech>truth & Tabula Rasa

Online debate:

• Go slower than normal, your internet or someone else's internet could cut out
• Don't be late to an online round (contact tab if you're having internet issues), I personally think you should be there at least 10 minutes before the round starts so you can send out an email chain to everyone.

General stuff:

• I'll tank your speaks and actively find ways to drop you if you're being a bigot, some sass/competition is good in debate but don't be downright rude. I've been the rude debater and the one who has been talked over/interrupted, neither feels good in the end.
• I will also lower your speaks if you post-round me (this is not the same as asking questions, please always feel free to ask questions) because I don't want to spend my weekends getting yelled at by teenagers.
• Read a trigger warning. If you're reading particularly triggering or graphic content, you should probably send an opt-out form. However, reading a TW for simply mentioning feminism, war on drugs, AIDS, etc isn't necessary.
• I'm not super knowledgeable on theory, but I know the basics. If you want to read theory with me judging (I wouldn't if I were you unless there was a particular violation) I recommend you slow down and see the section at the bottom of my paradigm.
• I'm begging you, no spreading.

Evidence:

• Use cut cards. If you can't do that, at least read direct quotes. I've been the victim of terrible paraphrasing, it sucks. Don't do it.
• I'm always going to prefer cut-card evidence over everything.
• When evidence is read it must be read with the author's last name and the year it was published. If you read something without this I will assume it's an analytic.
• Additionally, don't read something as an analytic and then add evidence to it later, just read the evidence outright.
• Please send out an email chain, I hate teams using a shared live Google doc to put evidence in because it gets messy and it lags. Just download your cases and attach the document to the email or copy-paste it directly into the email if you must. Please remember to hit "Reply All" so everyone can see it. I prefer that whole speech documents be sent out to save time.
• If the other side calls for a card and it takes you more than three minutes to find it, I'll strike it from the flow. Evidence exchanges should be quick and easy, with the exception of wifi issues.
• Compare the quality of evidence in your arguments, especially if your arguments are similar.

Speech stuff:

• I don't flow anything during cross-examination. Anything important from cross-ex should be in your next speech.
• Frontline in second rebuttal, anything dropped in second rebuttal will be conceded on my flow. Cover everything you want to go for in this speech.
• Defense has to be brought up in summary and final focus
• Anything you want to matter in the round must be in summary and final focus
• Collapse by the second half of the round. In summary, you should only be going for a few arguments that are well weighed. Having a big, messy, and blippy round will make my ballot frustrating for everyone.
• WEIGH. Doing comparative weighing (You prefer *our argument* over theirs because ___) makes my decision so much easier. Meta-weighing is even better. Make my decision to vote for you as easy as possible.
• The way I give speaker points fluctuates a lot. I'd say I average at like 27 to 28. Speaker points are not based on performance but on strategy. If you get a 30 you're probably the best debater I've seen in a while.

My debate icks:

• Paraphrasing.
• Not weighing.
• Not timing yourselves and your opponents. (this includes speeches and prep time)
• Not signposting where you are on the flow.
• Being blippy and unorganized in your speech.
• Taking too long to find evidence when someone requests it. You should have this stuff on hand.
• I don't flow anything after 5 seconds over time, you should only use those 5 seconds to finish your sentence not start a new argument.
• Being late or not prepared, the round start time is the round start time.
• "small schools" - arguing this rarely has a point.
• Roadmaps should just be "aff then neg" or "our side, their side" unless you're doing something funky but you should be signposting anyway

Theory:

My knowledge and experience with theory is very limited so I wouldn't run it unless you believe you have to.

I'm not a fan of friv theory and I don't like judging bad theory rounds. Theory in general is okay and can even be good, but I don't like judging it.

• Please over-explain everything, I have limited experience with this part of debate. If I get confused I'm more likely to vote on substance.
• Theory should be used to recognize abuse and set good norms. aka no friv theory.
• I inherently believe disclosure good and paraphrasing bad, but I'll listen to answers against them and evaluate the round based on the arguments. You'll have to be prepared if you're arguing "paraphrasing good" though, I find that very few of those arguments hold up.
• If you aren't reading one of the theories I have already mentioned, assume I know nothing about what you're arguing about and over-explain things. Even if you are reading something I mentioned, I would still over-explain since it's been a while.
• If you get hit with theory and don't know how to respond, do your best anyway. It's a learning moment, ask questions. I've been there, I get the confusion you're feeling but debate is all about learning as you go.
• "Our coach didn't teach us to respond to theory" - while I will feel a little bad for you, this isn't an argument and its not something I'll vote for. Theory in its essence is just another argument with a fancy name, do your best. Same with "our coach doesn't let us disclose" and in my opinion, if your coach doesn't let you disclose, they should probably familiarize you with how to respond to disclosure theory.
• I don't like RVI's and they confuse me, I wouldn't do this with me as a judge

Kriticks:

I have even less experience with K's than theory so I seriously wouldn't read this in front of me.

K's are written so poorly in PF debate and PF's structure isn't built for Kriticks. If you still choose to read one (don't know why you would do this) here is my opinion on the arguments:

• Over-explain everything, like I said earlier I have very little experience with this part of debate. Assume I know nothing. If I get confused I'm more likely to vote on substance.
• You have to actually solve or do something. Reading a K means you still have to read an organized argument. While I was a fan of structural violence weighing as a debater "creating discourse about structural violence" is not solving anything, you're just talking about it.
• I'll feel better voting for a K that's topical, but you have to explain exactly how you link in. If it's about the debate space, explain your problem and how you solve it.
• Don't extend the K by reading it again, that's not how you extend an argument.
• If your argument is just "You must vote for me because I am x Identity" or "vote for me because I talk about x issue" or "If you don't vote for me you don't care about x oppression" or anything along those lines, you'll probably lose. Refer to the second bullet point in this section. I wouldn't read any of these arguments in front of me.

I am a lay parent judge and I judge tech/truth. I prefer not to have too many regulations on debaters and I consider myself a flexible judge. As for evidence sharing, please have all your evidence ready to go before the debate so we don't waste time and please include me in the email chain. Signpost so I can have a clear flow. For high speaks make sure to be clear and order your speeches. Finally, if you are going to spread or speak remotely fast, please email me a speech doc or put a link in chat, @desai.darshan@gmail.com.

I am looking for clear communication, professionalism and mutual respect in the debate. I also expect the debaters to maintain time.

I will also look for how each debater responds to questions and answers. Debate should be vigorous, but debaters should show decorum and respect when countering.

Comparing and contrasting in your arguments is very important. Do strong weighing between the two arguments (Affirmative/Negative) and explain why yours is better than theirs and why I should vote for you. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear.

I look favorably on the debater that can make their point, and at the appropriate time move on to another strong point of their argument rather than one who stays on the same point for too long.

I don’t prefer intervening and expect teams to call out bad behavior such as spreading, new arguments in final focus etc. Competitors do not have to reply every argument in case a team is using spreading tactic.
Competitors are encouraged to focus on main issues pertaining to the topic rather than “minor” or “obscure” arguments.

Good Luck at the Tournament!

This is my second time being a judge. I prefer less of the jargon and a bit of guidance on what part of the format/structure you are speaking to and clarification on key points that you want to emphasize. I try my best to leave my own bias out and evaluate purely based on how well the speakers convey their points in terms of logic, connecting the dots and evidence, as well as tracking the flow deeply. I really appreciate if you can speak slowly and clearly.

I’m a parent judge who has judged PF for four years. This paradigm was influenced by my son. I flow important points throughout the round.

Preferences:

1. Have both warrants and impacts backed up by evidence in your case. Carry them through the round if you want me to vote on them.

2. Do comparative weighing in summary AND final focus, this is important. Don’t use buzzwords.

3. If you want me to vote on an argument, it must be in summary AND final focus.

4. Don’t speak too quickly. If I can’t understand you, you  won’t win my ballot.

5. Be respectful, especially in crossfire, or  I will dock speaker points.

6. No new arguments in final focus, they will not be considered. Bring them up earlier in the round so your opponents can respond to them.

7. Have all evidence ready to show your opponents. Don’t take too long when evidence is asked for..

8. Signpost throughout your speeches. This also includes short offtime roadmaps. It makes it much easier to flow.

9. Clearly explain your arguments in each speech, do not just assume I have a prior understanding of every argument. I do some reading on the topic before the tournament, but I am by no means an expert.

10.  Don’t run progressive arguments (Ks, theory), I don’t know how to evaluate them.

Speaker Points (adjusted based on division):

<26: Very poor OR offensive, rude, tried to cheat, etc.

26-26.9: Below Average

27-27.9: Average

28-28.9: Above Average

29-29.5: Great

29.6-30: Amazing

hey! i'm katheryne. 3yo, debated nat circ pf for 3 years, coaching + judging since. now junior at uchicago, assistant coach at taipei american school, and lead coach at national debate club. if i'm judging in person you can assume i've done topic prep.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.com and katheryne@cdadebate.comto the chain.

tl;dr: good judge for substance, pretty good judge for k, mid/bad judge for theory. past serious in round abuse (meaning discrimination) everything in this paradigm is up for debate and justifications about why i should/should not judge this way.

** what can i go for in front of you?

substance: 1
k neg (k w/ topic link): 2
soft left: 3
k aff (non-t k): 4
theory: 4
IVI: 5
tricks: strike

** substance/general (applies to all types of arguments!):

1. pretty standard tech judge. i start with weighing to determine highest level of offense, then determine best link in.

2. warrants are very important to me. every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need warrants in link ext to be properly extended.

3. respond to args in next speech, nothing is sticky.

4. all competing claims must be compared in some manner or i will, by definition, either have to intervene or ignore them. this means: competing pieces of evidence, links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc.

5. i like less, better developed and implicated arguments than a bunch of spammed poorly implicated ones. narrative is a good skill no matter what level you're debating at.

6. if no offense i presume neg. if a ton of floating offense is won and isn't compared, i will try as best i can to resolve the round without intervening, and presume neg if there is truly no way.

7. speed is fine, i have never met a PF round i could not flow if there 1. are docs 2. is clarity and 3. is signposting. i will clear you once, past that you're on your own. if you are not a clear speaker, you need to slow down in front of me.

8. i won't auto-drop on evidence ethics violations if i notice them without you telling me to. this is intervention. in egregious cases i'll tank speaks. if you want me to read a piece of evidence and cross it off my flow, tell me and i will. formal challenges are a waste of a debate, but of course i will evaluate them if levied.

** theory:

1. flexible preferences: default CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. less flexible preferences: theory immediately after abuse, prefer shell format to paragraph, won't vote on out of round abuse, won't vote on ad homs, much more hesitant to vote on out of round impacts than in round impacts.

2. pf theory debates are complicated by the fact that none of us agree on what the above words mean. to me: RVIs are not arguments which garner offense. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. which means that to me, i will vote on an OCI even if no RVIs is won but i will not vote on a defensive CI if no RVIs is won.

3. i am very sympathetic to this, but ultimately "idk how to deal w/ theory" isn't a workable response in varsity tournaments. i will give a long RFD explaining what happened and how you could have responded, but i won't ever down a varsity team for reading theory on face.

4. layering arguments are crucial when there are several offs. even when there is only one off, i need the DTD + theory uplayers weighing extended through final to vote on it.

5. the "jargon as extension of implied warrant" problem in pf is especially bad in theory debates, which is probably why i dislike them so much. the two words "norm setting" in the ff are not enough to justify a ballot for me, do a little more.

6. my personal leanings: OS disclosure is good, i care very little about the rest of these random disclosure interps. paraphrasing is bad, hard to defend as an academic practice.

** k neg (w/ topic link):

when done well, these are some of my favorite debates and i will defend their educational value (yes, even in PF) to the grave. when done poorly, these are hands down my least favorite debates. do not assume i will hack for a poorly read K, or give you good speaks.

1. i prefer really specific link debates. omission, for example, is not a good link. vague gestures at their model/narrative/manner of thinking are not good links. often, the problem is not the argument itself, just the lack of specificity.

2. the difficulty with alts in PF is the biggest incompatibility between the argument and format. some alts are just straight up CPs, i am sympathetic to procedural arguments about that not being allowed, i am open to defenses of that practice as well. i am warming up on reject alts if the rest of your advocacy is very specific, and there's good cohesion between rejection and your framing. i am personally skeptical of discourse shapes reality arguments but will of course vote for them if they are won.

3. i am open to basically any way to see my ballot (prioritization of X, worlds comparison, some obligation as an educator/judge, etc) i am equally open to the idea that asking me to use my ballot in certain ways probably opens up ground for T arguments. that being said, my inclination is against deleting 4 minutes of aff (first speaking) ground, i want to weigh the case, i am easily persuaded by arguments that tell me to do so. winning K turns case = easiest way to my ballot w/ the K.

4. going for framework, DAs on alt solvency, link D, and perms is the most impressive method of engagement to me in pf. doing this well is usually a 30 and the W.

5. do not read a paraphrased k in front of me. disclose the k.

** k aff (non-t):

i understand these arguments probably above average amongst pf tech judges, and have a lot of experience reading and judging them, but i honestly don't like them very much. that being said i'll eval anything and vote for anything that's won.

1. you need to be really convincing about why it is educational not to debate the topic, i think T decently read is quite convincing. i do not think T is violent but i'll eval it. happy to vote for k aff if T is beat (have many times).

2. need good explanation of importance of the ballot. will not vote on these args if i do not understand why i am meant to do so.

3. if you're hitting a K aff, do something better than "but this is PF." i vote for T and cap against k affs easily. do that instead. creative methods of engagement are also great, but i really will just vote for T.

4. i generally do not think identity positions are immune from disclosure arguments. i understand arguments about outing and will flow them. but i am easily convinced that disclosure is still important. obviously evidence and paraphrasing norms are dependent on the style/type of evidence used, use best practices and be ready to defend them.

tldr :

he/him

first year out

read whatever

i love impact turn debates

tab

idk the topic

must frontline in second rebuttal

collapse pls

I like theory debate that is well thought out. Ill vote off anything, but I will be mad if you dont know what you are doing or are doing it really badly.

longer:

did pf for 4 years and world schools at nats, did alright

I debated pf pretty technically ig, lots of soft left affs. theory quite a bit as well and a few sec ks

understand the k, but go slower in later speeches to make sure i am flowing every extension necessary for u to win the round.

if its psychoanalysis or a complicated high theory argument, know that I am not familiar with the lit base, and explain the jargon being used or make it clear what it means in context of the theory

if ur gonna spread, be clear, I am not j reading off a speech doc

u have 2 mins to put a card on a preshared round doc (unless both teams want email chain only) and in this time neither team should be prepping

i hope all those anonymous accounts on the round doc are not being sus

i will disclose obv

do not just read arguments you don't understand copied from someone else

I generally disclosed and like disclosing, but I will obviously listen to disclosure theory like any other arguments

i dont really like paraphrasing but I am extremely receptive to theory arguments as to why it should/ should not be allowed

i think speaks r dumb and will generally give 29s for good debaters and 30s for really good

i think thats it for now

Background:

Tawfique Elahi graduated with an MSc in Information Systems from Lund University, Sweden, and his bachelor's degree in computer science from NSU. He is an early-career researcher in Human-Computer Interaction and Artificial Intelligence.

He served as a debate coach at BL Debate Academy, Vancouver; and Debate Spaces Academy, Boston. In terms of leadership experience, he currently served as the Head of the Lund University Debating Society, and Chairperson at the United Asian Debating Council. Previously, he was the Secretary of the World Universities Debating Council (WUDC) and the Asian BP Debating Council. He brings a wealth of debate experience to the table. He has judged elimination rounds at ~100 debate championships on five continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America), served on ~25 Chief Adjudication Panels, 3 Equity Panels, ~40 Grand Finals, and chaired ~20 elimination rounds. Among his major successes are serving as Chief Adjudicator at the McMaster High School Tournament and judging final series rounds at the World Championship of Debating (Korea WUDC), Hart House IV, and Canadian BP Championships. He is experienced with the WSDC, IPDA, CNDF, BP, CP, PF, LD, Policy, Asians, Australs, and Easters formats.

Certifications:

• NFHS Protecting Students from Abuse

• NFHS Cultural Competence Course

General Notes for speakers:

• I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of evidence and properly tie back the evidence to their position.
• While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated with it.
• Engagement is important. Direct comparison and weighing make the lives of judges easier. It's preferable that you also illustrate how the advantages on your side outweigh theirs, and how their disadvantages outweigh their advantages.
• If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.
• If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.
• Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligent voter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.
• Please don't use any offensive language that leads to equity violations.
• Roadmaps are appreciated.
• Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.
• Any kind of Style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.
• I reasonably flow during speeches. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.

Blake '21, UChicago '25

I did PF on the national circuit for 3 years, and now am an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minneapolis.

Tl;dr

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- Please read paraphrasing theory in rounds where the opponents are paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is an awful practice, evidence is VERY important to me, and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs before each speech in which cards will be read.

- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are not paraphrasing.

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isn't sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it must be in both back half speeches.

- Please weigh.

- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.

- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, Darren Chang, Ellie Singer, and Shane Stafford.

- Please add both jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the email chain.

- Feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General Paradigm

Rules

I will time speeches and prep, though you are encouraged to do the same. I will enforce excessive and flagrant intentional violations of speech time rules with the ballot, if necessary. In most cases, this is not needed recourse, and I will simply stop flowing once the time has elapsed.

Speeches

Roadmaps: In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are more than 2 sheets, then I will ask for a roadmap.

The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense. Any arguments dropped by the second rebuttal are considered dropped in the round.

The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or in any way going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me. See below for a caveat.

Sticky Defense: In almost all scenarios, defense is not sticky. It is completely incoherent to me that the first summary does not need to extend defense on contentions that the second summary might go for. However, the sole exception to this will be if a team does not frontline to any arguments on a contention in the second rebuttal. The first summary can consider that contention kicked. This is already pretty solidified as a norm, and allows second speaking teams to kick arguments without literally saying “there is no offense on Contention X.” An extension of this contention, that was clearly kicked in second rebuttal, by the second summary will allow the first final to extend defense from the first rebuttal on that contention specifically.

Speed: I am comfortable with all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak at 400+ WPM, and I can understand every word. Likewise, I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear. I will say clear if I can’t follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must). If you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.

Speech docs: Please send speech docs with cut cards. This vastly decreases the amount of wasted time in rounds sending various individual cards at different times.

Weighing: The team that wins the weighing debate is nearly always winning the round. I start every RFD with an evaluation of the weighing debate, and it frequently is what controls the direction of my ballot. Please start weighing as early as possible, it will help you make smart strategic decisions without making the round a total mess. I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

Collapse: Please collapse. I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.

Abusive Delinks: I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself to get out of turn offense. This does not mean you cannot bite defense read, or make new frontline responses to turns, rather it means you cannot overtly contradict your initial arguments with a piece of defense your opponents did not read to get out of offense they read. This applies in situations as clear cut as the aff saying X, the neg responding with X is actually bad, and the aff responds with “not X.” This almost never happens, but is astonishingly abusive when it is attempted.

Framework: If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it, or make arguments as to why they get responses later in the round. I don't know where I stand on this technically yet, but this is where I am leaning now. In general, if the 1st constructive introduces framework and the 2nd constructive drops it, I think its ok for the first rebuttal to call it conceded unless otherwise argued.

Advocacies/T: In general, I will evaluate the flow without prejudice on what ground the aff or neg claims to have. Because the neg doesn't get a counter plan in PF, the aff advocacy does not block the neg out of ground. Both the aff and neg can make arguments about what the aff would most likely look at, and should garner advantages and disadvantages based off of those interpretations. I will evaluate whose is more likely to be correct and go from there. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages unless it is argued that troop deployment is not a feasible implementation of the aff. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works.

Safety issues: I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism, sexism, death, patriarchy (etc) good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.

Housekeeping: I take the important parts of the debate incredibly seriously, but there are aspects that I find frivolously pretentious. Be nice and respectful, but keep it somewhat light and casual if you can! Debate is supposed to be at least somewhat fun, so lets treat it as such. I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), if you do the flip or enter the room before im there, etc.

Evidence

Disclaimer: I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. This section is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Evidence is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an argument as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point.

Bottom line: Evidence is the backbone of the activity. I do not fancy fast paced lying as a debate format. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will certainly call for cards if docs are not already sent. Evidence quality is exceedingly important, and I will have no qualms dropping teams for awful evidence. This applies regardless of if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it.

Paraphrasing: The single worst wide-spread practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Luckily, it seems on the decline! Regardless, it is bad for the quality of debate, it is bad for all of its educational benefits, and it ruins fairness. Please cut cards, it is not difficult to learn. If you insist on making me upset and paraphrasing, keep the following in mind:

1. You must have a cut card that you paraphrased from. It is an NSDA rule now.

2. Your opponents do not need to take prep to sort through your PDFs, and if you can’t quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.

3. Paraphrasing does not let you off the hook for not reading a warrant. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank.

4. If you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you can’t find it when asked and you make the argument to "just evaluate as an analytic," I will also give an L25. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

5. Don’t be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is no longer world in which someone who paraphrases, even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 28.5 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

Producing evidence: If reading the header "paraphrasing" meant you skipped over that part of my paradigm, I will reiterate something that is important regardless of how you introduce the evidence. If you can’t produce a card upon being asked for it within reasonable time frame given the network or technical context, your speaks will tank.

Evidence Preference: Even if not a full shell, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me.

Author Cites: This is yet another thing I should not need to put in my paradigm. You need to cite the author you are reading in speech for it to be counted as evidence as opposed to an analytic. If you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of evidence, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. It is blatant plagiarism and extremely unethical. In an educational activity, this should be exceedingly obvious.

Progressive Paradigm

Debate is good: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value and can be transformative in the best possible way. Arguments that say debate is bad and should be destroyed entirely (often this is the conclusion of non-topical pessimistic arguments, killjoy, etc) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. This does not make them unwinnable, but probably not strategic to read.

Disclaimer: I'm receptive to all arguments, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting very low quality recently. I worry about the long-term impact about some of these in the activity. I beg of you, think about the model you are advocating for, and think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it. The impact you can leave on the activity could be positive or negative and will outlast your time as a debater.

Theory

CI/Reasonability: I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this section. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate the flow normally.

RVIs: I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this is an RVI on an IVI.

IVIs: These are really bad for debate. If there is a rules claim to be made, make it a theory shell. If there is a safety issue, then stop the round. Almost all of the time, IVIs are vague whines spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop. My threshold for responses to these is near zero.

Frivolity: I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. This does include spikes and tricks. I don't like them, please don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round. I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments. It has become more common these days to read WPM interpretations (i.e. cannot be more than 250 WPM). I think these are pretty stupid, to be entirely honest. It is not clear to me why disclosure doesn't solve or why being a more efficient speaker doesn't solve. Not saying I wouldn't vote for it in the right round, but its probably more an uphill battle in front of me than most.

Introduction: Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.

Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as there’s some offense on the shell. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off (like before a paraphrasing bad shell) I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it.

Disclosure is good: Disclosure is good, but how you disclose matters. These days I prefer open source disclosure, where tags, cites, and highlights are all included. "Open source" with no highlights or tags, where teams put up walls of unformatted text and expect people to do precisely anything with it, is a huge pet peeve of mine and interps that punish teams that do this will be received favorably. My predisposition towards disclosure is slightly less severe than mine towards paraphrasing, but my decisions cannot help but to be impacted by them. It is not impossible, but probably not easy, to win disclosure bad in front of me. Ideally, you would just disclose. I have decided the activity should probably start moving in the direction of disclosing rebuttal evidence as well, so do with that what you may. I will listen to reasons why that is bad, though I struggle to see the conceptual difference between a link turn and a case link from a disclosure perspective.

Trigger warnings: I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that don’t need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You’ll find Elizabeth Terveen’s paradigm has a good section on this that I generally agree on. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically. Obviously, egregiously graphic descriptions are an exception to this general belief, but they are almost never run in PF. The mention of something is not a good enough reason for a trigger warning.

Kritiks

General disposition: I am somewhat comfortable evaluating most kritikal arguments, although I’m not as experienced with them as I am with others. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well. I am quite comfortable with capitalism, security, and fem IR.

Disclaimer: Blake 2021 made me think about this part of my paradigm a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. The proliferation of identity, pomo inspired kritiks that vaguely ask the judge to vote for a team based on an identity and nothing else is not good. Moreover, methods that advocate collapsing the activity are unlikely to be well received. In any case, please articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing to improve the activity. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

“Pre-fiat”: No one thinks fiat is real, so let’s be more specific about how we label arguments and discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument.’

Discourse: I am pretty skeptical that discourse shapes reality. If you go for this, you best have excellent evidence and good explanations.

Speaks

I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy because I never give speaks that high almost ever. I will not give a 30, there are no perfect debaters.

for pf

- frontline (respond to their responses) if you're second rebuttal

- extend with warrants (reason why your argument is true) or it's not extended

- if you want it in final focus, talk about it in summary

- i wont vote on disclosure

- dont be a jerk

Any seamless reference to Avatar the Last Airbender will receive an additional +.25 to +.5 speaker points based on how much your reference is the quenchiest.

email: mckenzie.engen@gmail.com

Hey ya'll, I was a 3-year debater at LAMDL and captained my high school team and graduated UCLA 2021 with background in political science and a concentration in IR. I debated up to varsity so I'm very familiar with all the tricks, strategies, lingo when it comes to debate. I also debated in parli at UCLA for around 2 years.

Email chain: myprofessionalemail47@yahoo.com, ejumico@gmail.com

Small things that will earn you some favorable opinions or extra speaks

-Be politically tactful on language use. Although I won't ding you if you curse or any of that sort, I do find it more entertaining and fun if you can piss off your opponent while remaining calm and kind to strategically manipulate them rather than yell and get mad. This also means that you should be very careful about using certain words that might trigger the opponent or allow them to utilize that as an offensive tool.

-Use as much tech lingo as you can. Point out when the opponent drops something or why the disad outweighs and turns the case or when there is a double bind, etc etc.

-Analogical arguments with outside references will earn you huge huge points. References through classical literature, strategic board games, video games, anime, historical examples, current events or even just bare and basic academics. It shows me how well versed and cultured you are and that's a part of showmanship.

-Scientific theories, mathematical references, experiments, philosophical thoughts, high academia examples will get you close to a 30 on your speaks and definitely make your argument stronger.

Big things that will lean the debate towards your favor and win you rounds

-I like a good framework debate. Really impact out why I should be voting for your side.

-If you're running high theory Kritik, you need to be prepared to be able to explain and convince me how the evidence supports your argument. A lot of the time when high theory Kritik is run, people fail to explain how the evidence can be interpreted in a certain way.

-Fairness and debate theory arguments are legitimate arguments and voters, please don't drop them.

-I was a solid K debater so it will be favorable for Neg to run K and T BUT I am first and foremost a strategist debater. Which means I will treat debate as a game and you SHOULD pick and choose arguments that are more favorable to you and what the Aff has debated very very weakly one or if there is a possibility that the Disad can outweigh the case better than your link story on the K, I would much prefer if you went for DA and CP than K and T.

-K Affs must be prepared to debate theory and fw more heavily than their impact.

-I LOVE offensive strategies and arguments whether you're Aff or Neg. If you can make it seem like what the opponent advocates for causes more harms than it claims to solve for or causes the exact harms it claims to solve for + more (not just more harms than your advocacy) then it won't be as hard for me to decide on a winner.

-Would love to hear arguments that are radical, revolutionary, yet still realistic. They should be unique and interesting. Be creative! High speaks + wins if you're creative. Try to make me frame the round more differently than usual and think outside the box.

-Answer theory please.

Disclosed biases, beliefs, educational background

West coast bred, progressive arguments are more palatable but some personal beliefs are more centrist or right swinging (depending on what). Well versed with foreign policy and especially issues dealing with Middle East and China, have some economics background. With that being said, I do not vote based on beliefs but arguments, I also don't vote based on what I know so you need to tell me what I need to vote on verbatim. Will vote against a racial bias impact if not clearly articulated. You should never make the assumption that I will automatically already have the background to something, please answer an argument even if you think I already should have prior knowledge on it.

Round specificities

CX:I do not flow but I pay attention.

T-team:Ok.

Flashing:I do not count it as prep unless it feels like you're taking advantage of it.

Time:Take your own time and opponents time, I do not time. If you don't know what your time is during prep or during the speech, I will be taking off points.

I debated for 4 years (PF and LD) in Alabama. You can pretty much do whatever you want as long as it's not unethical, but here are a few specific things I like:

• If you want me to vote on it, it needs to appear in the summary and the Final Focus (PF)

• Please don’t just yell cards at me. Some analysis of what it says is appreciated.

• Make sure to bring up concessions made during cross in speeches
• Theory is a tool used to ensure fairness in debate so please don't try to use it in the forms of abusive argumentation to win debates.

Hey! My name is Anish and I am probably your judge if you are reading this so I will get to the point.

*if you read SV or anything related to marginalized groups, I will evaluate with a higher standard of proof and criticism. I read arguments very similar to this as a high schooler and would hate it when people would read them without properly researching and/or using them just to win rounds.*

Important Info:

1. Main Events:

1. Public Forum, World Schools Debate, Congressional Debate

2. Pace

1. Don’t spread preferably (I can handle some speed but I don’t want to miss anything that you read so I wouldn’t go the spreading route)

3. Theory

1. I am a very traditional debater that largely debated locals so I have almost no experience in this department. Run at your own risk.

4. Docs

1. Send all docs to 4n15h1904@gmail.com (ik its weird, its an old email), especially evidence. I prefer a PDF format with cards similar to this format. Docx is fine but may have wonky formatting.

2. Format like this: *Tournament* *Round* *PRO team v CON team*

1. Ex. NCFL Octas Rock Bridge GS v Delbarton CE

5. Evidence

1. Evidence Ethics

1. Every piece of evidence you read needs to be cut and easily accessible for when evidence challenges come up

2. If I want a piece of evidence, I will ask for it. If you want me to look at a piece of evidence, ask for it and tell me what’s wrong with the evidence specifically (ex. No part of their evidence actually says *insert statement that the other team asserted*.)

2. Norms

1. I am fine with paraphrase, just keep cards ready and if you are clearly lying about your evidence then you will get downed especially if the other team goes for that

6. Signpost please for god’s sake

1. Signpost not just for which case you are on but contentions and bonus points if you tell me where in the argument, it makes my flowing a lot easier and allows me to keep all of your arguments on track

7. Weighing

1. I am a very big proponent of weighing (Who isn’t). Don’t do some magnitude or probability BS though. I want prereq analysis, link in analysis, timeframe, etc. I want you to genuinely think about how your arguments interact and take your opponents at their highest ground when weighing. I don’t care if you are only winning one issue in your entire debate, if you weigh and show me why it matters the most then you have my ballot if you win both the weighing level and the argument level.

8. Crossfire

1. I pay attention to cross but will not vote for anything in it unless brought into speeches.

2. You can be a little aggressive just make sure to not cross any line (especially ad hominems and stuff)

9. Norms (I emphasize this, I expect you to know these)

1. Extend any argument you go for (ex. Now onto our C1 where we told you that right now India’s investment in Space has reached its cap, fortunately the Artemis Accords provides new connections with world partners, providing billions of dollars investment which can boost space based climate infrastructure and help millions of Indians threatened by climate change)

2. 2nd rebuttal must frontline turns, warranted defense (if the 1R simply says this won’t happen because “____ (insert entity) won’t let it” without warranting then you don’t need to frontline and I will just strike the response)

3. Defense isn't sticky pls extend responses you want me to evaluate or else the debate becomes just muddled.

4. Flex Prep is fine w me

Last but not least: Tell me how to vote

I want your final focus to write the ballot for me basically

I want you to highlight a few things:

1. The argument(s) you won

1. Don't pick more than 2 args or points to go for (your case, a turn, etc.)

2. Why they matter the most in the round

1. Weigh hard

3. Extending why your opponents lost the arguments that they go for

1. Extend and implicate responses that kills their case basically (don't just say they dropped this response but tie back why their argument can’t function with that)

Fun Stuff

1. Work a Batman Reference in for +1.5 Speaker points

2. Stupid analogy for +1 Speaker point

3. comic sans in ur docs for +1 speaker point

*idrc abt speaks tbh, like I know they are tiebreakers and there for speaker positions, so like I keep mine generally pretty high cuz I don't want to mess with y'all's speaker award performances.

My Experience

Congratulations for making it down here! I figure I would show my debate experience so you all have an idea of what kind of debate I am experienced in

I competed for 4 years on the Eastern Missouri circuit (Super lay circuit) and occasionally nationally

Some of my achievements:

• NCFL Grand Nationals 2023 3rd Place in Public Forum Debate

• NSDA Nationals 2022 12th Place in Extemp Debate

• Greenhill Fall Classic Quarterfinalist in World Schools Debate

• Greenhill Fall Classic Top Speaker in World Schools Debate

• Millard North 2023 Octafinalist in Public Forum

• Millard North 2023 6th Speaker in Public Forum

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

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

If you are sick, please wear a mask. Thanks

Update for WA locals:

Novice: don't worry about this paradigm and just debate how you feel most comfortable. I will adapt to you.

Prelims: Nothing is sticky. This means you need to extend each specific piece of offense or defense in every speech, or it is off the flow. This means you should be collapsing and kicking out certain arguments. If you have any questions about this, please ask me before round.

Mixed panel: I will be a bit more flexible. Just debate how you normally do but I will be voting off the flow as much as possible.

Substance

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

Circuit rounds: slow down maybe 15-20% during the back half

Second rebuttal must frontline all defense and turns at least briefly

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

Prereq and link in weighing are great

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

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

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

Prog

Theory & T are fine

Defaults: no RVIs, CIs > reasonability, text > spirit. Also disclo good, paraphrasing bad, round reports good. I'll evaluate any theory argument

Topical K: have evaluated sec, setcol, and cap

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

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

I am new(er) parent judge. I am listening to your arguments while keeping an eye on the clock and will let you finish the sentence but like to keep the proceedings on time.

I am listening to understand the logic of your arguments and how you are building your case. I also like to see you use your chance to ask questions of your opponents.

1. I am new to judging, so I would appreciate if you speak in normal pace (marginal slow or fast is ok) and clearly.

2. I am a big believer in fact, so please be correct in your facts.

3. Please be respectful towards your opponents- no mockery or intimidation.

Put me on the chain: sandrewgilbert@gmail.com

I prefer that teams send cases before constructive and speech docs before rebuttal.

About Me

I competed on the PF national circuit from 2010 to 2012. I coached on and off from 2012 to 2016, when I became the PF coach at Hackley School in NY until June 2019. After being out of debate for 4.5 years, I judged two tournaments in February 2024. I'm not coaching, so don't assume I know anything about the March topic.

Big Picture

I'm tech > truth.

If you want me to vote off your argument, extend the link and impact in summary and FF, and frontline defense. (If there is some muddled defense on your argument, I can resolve that if your weighing is much better and/or the other team's argument is also muddled.)

Give me comparative weighing. Don't just say, "We outweigh on scope." Tell me why you're outweighing the other impact(s). Most teams I vote for are generally doing much more work on the weighing debate, such as responding to the specific reasoning in their opponent's weighing or providing me with metaweighing arguments that compel me to vote for them.

If you say something offensive, I will lower your speaks and might drop you.

Specific Preferences

1. Second rebuttal should cover all turns, and address defense on the argument(s) you go for in summary and FF. If it doesn't cover defense, that's not a deal breaker – just makes it harder for me to vote off.

2. Extend defense in summary and FF. For example, if second rebuttal didn't cover some defense on the argument(s) extended, first summary should extend that defense. Obviously, If second rebuttal didn't frontline an argument, then first summary doesn't need to extend relevant defense.

3. Collapse and weigh in summary and FF. The best teams I've judged typically go for one argument in the second half of the round because collapsing allows them to do thorough line-by-line link and impact extensions, frontline defense, and weigh.

4. Give me the warranting behind your evidence. I do not care if some author says X is true, but I care quite a bit about why X is true. I prefer warrants over unexplained empirics.

5. Do not give me a roadmap – tell me where you're starting and signpost. Make sure you're clear in signposting. I don't want to look all over my flow to figure out where to write.

6. I have some experience judging theory. If you run it, make sure it's actually checking abuse. I'll be less inclined to vote off the shell if you read it because of a relatively minor offense.

7. I've never judged a K. At the very least, it should be topical, and you'll have to accept that I'll determine how to adjudicate it.

8. If you are arguing about how the resolution affects domestic politics (e.g. political capital, elections, Supreme Court, etc.), please have very good warranting as to why your argument is probable. I have a higher threshold for voting on these arguments because I strongly believe that most debate resolutions are unlikely to impact U.S. politics to the extent that you can say specific legislation or electoral results likely do or do not happen. If you do not think you can easily make a persuasive case about why your politics argument is likely, please do not read it or go for it.

I am a parent judge.

Be clear and concise in your speeches. Don't speak too fast.

I will try my best to flow the round.

Be polite and respectful.

I am a third year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school and won the Glenbrooks, the Strake Round Robin, Blake, Durham, the Barkley Forum, Stanford, Harvard, the King Round Robin, and NDCAs.

Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu AND collegepreppf@gmail.com to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”

TL;DR

I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.

———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.

Email Chains:

I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp. If you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+), but be clear. If I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, as I think it's educational.

Trigger Warnings:

I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize excluding them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind). I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory, and I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory. “I don't know how to respond” is not a sufficient response. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp; if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.

Kritiks:

I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks.

Hello, participants! I'm D. Godinez, thrilled to evaluate your performances. I believe in fair judging, aiming to assess your communication skills, argumentation, and overall presentation.

My focus is on clarity, organization, and engagement. As a new judge, I'm eager to provide constructive feedback. I will base my score on

• Content: Clear thesis, relevant content, effective evidence.
• Organization: Logical structure, smooth transitions, clear intro, and conclusion.
• Delivery: Engaging voice, appropriate body language, maintained eye contact.
• Rebuttal/Refutation (Debate Events): Analytical skills, quick thinking, clear refutation.

I value clear communication over speed talk and discourage aggressive attacks on opponents.

Feedback will highlight your strengths and suggest improvements.

I am a parent judge. I judge a handful of tournaments a year of varying difficulty. I will try to flow the round if you move too quickly through a point, I may miss your point. I need you to speak at a conversational rate with clarity. Signposting does help me follow your argument. Talking louder does not create emphasis, it is very distracting to me as a judge, slow down or create eye contact to make your point.

I may not be aware of all the debate jargon or even jargon within the topic. Clear and concise weighing will be key to getting the ballot, MAKE SURE you give clear reasons to prefer your case, and don’t go all in for turns. Address the topic given, I am not in favor of alternative types of cases being presented. Speaker points will be decided upon by respectful dialogue and a knowledgeable presentation of the argument.

General:

ALWAYS ask permission to spread.

ALWAYS check if the judge is ready.

Above all- maintain decorum. Assertiveness is perfectly fine, even encouraged. But unprofessional behavior will only get you an easy L.

Public Forum:

Self-described as hybrid trad-tech judge, slightly trad-leaning.

If you try to run a theory case, it better be reasonable. Don't make false accusations for the sake of confusing your opponents or catching them off guard.

Signposting is appreciated, but not required.

Stick to the time restrictions. I'll give you some grace, but I will also cut you off if you go too far over. When in doubt, play it safe.

Avoid interrupting someone or speaking over your opponent, particularly during cross rounds. Only interject when absolutely necessary. It's a fine line, pick your battles accordingly. Don't pick every battle.

Don't let things go- if claims or frameworks go unrefuted, they drop- plain and simple.

If something is argued prior to grand cross, it can be brought back up in final focus. In other words: if you bring it in, then you make it fair game to be attacked or responded to.

FYI- I'm not keeping track of prep time.

Student Congress:

I value an efficient PO. If you keep the chamber productive and run it fairly, I will likely rank you.

Unless you are the author/sponsor, you should be clashing.

Late round speakers should not just rehash previously presented arguments. They should be crystallizing.

Please behave like actual senators/congressmen and congresswomen; failure to do so can impact your ranking.

Speech Events:

Originality scores the biggest points with me.

Eye contact always matters, but it matters more in speech.

Your tone holds a lot of weight, showing tonal range is crucial in all speech events.

Be aware of your timing, I am not reliable for hand signals.

In terms of piece selection or chosen topic: sad is fine, but funny is better. Make me feel something.

• My experience in judging is limited

• Please speak clearly, avoid speed, explain thoroughly and do not make assumptions about my knowledge of the topic. Public Forum is an event designed to be judged by anyone - debate accordingly.

I did 4 years of public forum for duPont Manual High School.

adigollamudi@gmail.com
throw me in the email chain if there is one

General:

Warranting is key. A few well-warranted responses will always be better than a bunch of small unexplained blips (aka quality>quantity). Don't just read card names explain important evidence and give me the warranting

Please have full extensions of arguments with uniqueness, link and impact. Without that, I will not feel comfortable voting off of it. Saying the word extend is not an extension lol.

Collapse. I like when debaters narrow the focus of the debate and spend more time talking ab a few things. Again Quality>Quantity

Everything you want me to vote off of needs to be in summary and final.

Weighing is really important. If both teams win their offense and only one team weighs they're getting the W even if the weighing is bad. I will not do work for you here so if your impact is bigger or better tell me how and why. Also tell me why your weighing is better than your opponents if they read any.

Don't spread preferably (I don't think you need it to give a great speech in PF). I'll prob be okay with a little speed tho. If you're going to go fast, send a speech doc.

Signpost por favor. Tell me what case you're responding to or talking about and what part of the argument you're on.

Have fun, don't get mad, debate isn't that deep, throw in a lil uzi vert reference for good speaks.

Progressive Debate/Offs:

please don't brah.. it's been a minute since I've debated and I'd honestly just prefer to judge a substance debate. If something genuinely abusive happens (i.e. slurs, racism, etc.), call it out though and I will vote off it, you don’t need to have a shell

Evidence Ethics/intervening:
Cut your evidence properly lol. I want to intervene as little as possible but if there is an important piece of ev that I'm told to call for and it is super power tagged I'll drop it from the flow.

my love for good warranting and logic also applies here: don't assume the debate is over because something you say is backed by a card and what your opponents say isn't. If what they say logically makes sense, I'll buy it. Evidence supports logic and reasoning.

I also don't care if you want to make every cross open.

Speaker points:
for speaks don't be abusive, rude, or give me any other reason to dock you.

if you have questions about my paradigm, me, or my decision for the round feel free to ask questions I don't mind explaining. Losing is an extremely big and important part of this activity so embrace the Ls and ask me if you want to learn what you could have done to win.

brixztheflip@gmail.com

I don't have a pair of dime, but i got four nickels

T is not a voter

Fairness is not an impact

although i believe in my heart of hearts that disclosure is good, I don't care about your disclosure theory...

I vote against my personal beliefs all the time it often makes me sad

Make Art Not War

Good Luck out there, show me something I ain't seen before.

I'm not one of of these smug intellectuals, I use a lot of fancy words sometimes but I thrifted them.... so the better you can tell it like it is and give historical examples the easier it is for me to make a decision.

Judge instruction is nice... dont just say it to me, tell me what to do with it.

Hello!

I am a first time parent judge and have never judged a debate round before.

A couple preferences:

- Please speak very slowly and clearly so that I can understand everything being said.

- I am unfamiliar with debating terminology so please try to limit them.

- Tell me exactly why to vote for you, tell me why your arguments matter, and tell me why your opponents arguments are false

- Try not to get muddled into arguments and small details--I look for the big picture

Hi everyone! I am a parent who has judged PF tournaments for over a year. I have a few requirements and preferences:

1) No spreading - If I cannot understand you I cannot take your argument into consideration.

2) Be respectful - Don't get angry or yell at your opponents. Don't say anything offensive.

Good luck!

New parent judge

speak slowly and clearly

dont use debate jargon

watch your and your opponent's time

Hello! I am a judge because my daughter is very invested in debate and I enjoy seeing the kind of talent out across our nation. My preferences for speaking are clear sentences and are not spoken unnecessarily fast, as I do not like spreading. I hope everyone is cordial and respectful to each other before, during and after the round. I am a tech over truth judge and prefer analytical warranting over cards with no warrants.

Thank you!

I am a lay parent judge.

I would like to assure you that I have studied the resolution - however, I will judge entirely based on your arguments. There will be less emphasis on impact since I believe the impact is often subject to bias.

Please do not spread because if I don’t understand what you are saying, you will hurt your chances of winning.

I like concise arguments with proper evidence that is cited well. Paraphrasing is good with proper citation of author, article etc. However, please do not misinterpret your evidence when you paraphrase to suit your argument. I encourage teams to request the cards as necessary- I may also ask for the cards myself. If I am convinced that you are talking very fast just to include as many quotes as possible- that may go against you—your arguments should be concise with the correct interpretation of your evidence, and hence you may need to paraphrase.

I encourage you to send me your cases before the round starts. My email address is uguha47@gmail.com Be polite and respectful during crossfire. Good Luck.

Hey, I'm Ryan.

I'm currently a junior at Yale. I competed in Public Forum for 4 years with Fairmont Prep. I qualified to the ToC 4 times and made elimination rounds twice.

Generally: Debate to win but do so jovially (when possible) and kindly (always).

I try to strike a balance between judging rounds in naive, good faith (letting debaters do whatever it is they'd like to do) and working within some of the standards I have found to be reasonable and valuable for debate's educational and competitive purposes. With these guardrails, I try to escape the biases I might have in the scenarios I've yet to encounter. This may not be the right approach, but I think these standards are pedagogically valuable in their own right (i.e. I think they promote a form of debate that can yield productive, material outcomes). The conventions I am partial towards are:

• Handle everything that matters in the 2nd rebuttal (all offense, all weighing, any defense on the arguments you want to keep in play).

• Defense is not sticky. Please extend anything you'll need in the 1st summary.

• Weighing is important. I believe it's conceded if not responded to in the next speech.

There are some other things too. I really like 700 word stock cases with nuanced links. I like strategy; I like clash. I really, really do not like long cases with links to extinction at every turn. I know this is the prerogative of some teams, but I will give the benefit of any doubts to straightforward and thoughtful speeches, even if they miss wild links to nuclear scenarios. I genuinely beg that you do not append extinction impacts to otherwise good arguments. I have never voted on extinction. I do not plan on voting on extinction. Unless the topic concerns militaries/militarization, I will almost certainly not vote for nuclear war. If you are climate change concerned, spend time delineating contributions to climate quality and modestly (honestly) implicating their effects. All this being said:

I am a "tech" judge with respect to how I flow. I am NOT a "tech" judge with respect to how I evaluate the flow.

I prefer (really, really, really prefer) evaluating less offense (1 piece ideal, 2 maximum) with good warrants, analysis, and comparative weighing. Extending 3+ pieces of offense in summary, let alone final focus, is the easiest way to miss my ballot.

In the realm of new waves, I don't require specific structures in responses to progressive arguments. I also ask that if you read theory, collapse on the theory (I don't evaluate "no RVI's"). If you do not pure collapse on your theory (if you continue to debate substance elsewhere on the flow), I will not vote for your theory.

I'm always happy to talk through my beliefs, and I'm always amenable to refining them or discovering new ones. Feel free to ask me any paradigm or debate related questions at ryan.gumlia@yale.edu. (Please do not add me to email chains; I will let you know at the end of the round if I would like to have them forwarded. I do not do this unless I am explicitly told to read a card.)

Hello!! I'm Alan, a debater/judge/student with around 6 years of public forum experience. I've judged some tournaments, yet I am unfamiliar with the topic this time and do not have much experience with the style of U.S. circuit debaters. Please be polite, don't spread and be clear with your speeches.

Good luck and HAVE FUN!!!

Hi all,

This is my second time judging a debate tournament as I am a lay judge so here are some of my preferences.

• Please speak slowly, I will not be able to understand you if you talk too fast.
• Be respectful with one another!
• Make sure to condense your points at the end of the round so that it is easier for me to make my ballot.

Good luck!

Hello,

I am a parent judge since 2018, judging PF Novice and Varsity tournaments.

* I try to take notes as much as I can on the content, facts, rebuttal and reasoning. However, if the speaker presents too fast, then I may not be able to comprehend. So, try to pace it at a medium to fast speed.

* I typically judge on how clear and effective the speaker is, and the facts that are presented to prove their contention

* I like when facts are juxtaposed compared to the opponent, not only numbers but reasoning as well

* I like to hear cross examination, to see how you defend you case and respond to opponents in an effective way

Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun debating!

- Stuti

I am a lay judge. This is my first tournament judging so speak slowly and clearly.

Hi, my name is Nidhi Gupta.

I am a lay judge and recently started judging debates.

I highly appreciate debaters who sound confident when speaking and are well-prepared. Overall, have fun and please do not be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.

Logical articulation.

Hello, my name is Nevan Hanford and I competed in the Arizona circuit in high school, participating in PF Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Congress. Overall, I believe speech and debate is about rhetorical, argumentative, and logical skills - please keep those in the fore front of your mind for any given event. I have preferences listed below for PF, Extemp, and Congress, take a brief look at your event. Please ask questions before and after round if you have any and email me if you would like more feedback (also add me to email chain) at njhanford@berkeley.edu

PF Preferences

PF debate is, was, and always will be a debate centered around a general audience. It is my philosophy that PF should be a debate understood and weighed upon through this lens. Therefore, please clearly and persuasively argue why you should win a given round.

1. I can handle moderate speeds, please don't go over 250 wpm, spreading will ultimately make it harder to communicate and understand arguments, so take that as you will.
2. I will vote upon any contention clearly warranted and with links. At the end of the day, I am a flow judge and will vote upon which arguments flow through. It is your job as debaters to extend the arguments you want voted upon. Anything dropped in summary will not be voted upon.
3. Cards/Evidence: Calling cards is an important aspect of debate, I may call cards throughout and after debate. If a card looks suspicious, please tell me that in your speeches and why I shouldn't vote off that evidence. I don't like to intervene, but if needed, at the end of round I will call any cards I don't buy, but you need to call out the oppositions cards!
4. Etiquette: Please be respectful to each other. I don't mind argumentative cross fires, but if it becomes unnecessarily aggressive, crossfire becomes unproductive. I prefer speakers to stand during speeches, excluding grand cross.
5. Crossfire: I will listen to cross, however will not flow anything unless extended. Bring up anything you want flowed through during cross in the next speech. DO NOT say your opponent conceded if they didn't actually concede to anything - yelling my opponent conceded doesn't mean they did.
6. Weighing: Please weigh your arguments against your opponents - this doesn't mean bigger numbers are always better - I will vote on the validity of the argument in addition to the weighing mechanism you provide.
7. Speaker points: I won't ever give below 27 speaker points unless your disrespectful in round, that being said, I will always give more speaker points for better speaking ability. Extra speaks if you make me laugh in round.

Congress Preferences

Congress is about engaging and collective argumentation amongst the house. That being said:

1. Speeches should be extemporaneously given with the help of legal notepad. Pre-written speeches will be ranked lower.
2. Please do not repeat old arguments, congress is about interactive debate - every speech following authorship should contain refutations of the opposing sides arguments.
3. Congress is supposed to be fun - I love when debaters have fun intros to their speeches, please feel free to.
4. Evidence: Speeches should contain evidence, however, congress is not PF or LD. Please do not cite evidence as cards - you should be interlacing your arguments with your evidence. Ex: "A recent report from the NY Times found ..." NOT "Carr 15 finds..."
5. PO: I will be more than willing to rank PO high if they either a) have excellent command of procedure or b) volunteer when more veteran debaters refuse to PO
6. Please don't have more than 3 speeches in a row on one side - then it is no longer a debate. If you planned on giving an affirmative but there is no negation - flip!

Extemp Preferences

Extemp is my favorite event to judge - it is also often the toughest to judge. When I did extemp, I often didn't know what criteria judges were ranking by. The following is what I will be using in rankings:

1. Analysis: Extemp is not about reporting on evidence, it is about analyzing evidence in relation to the question. Given this, don't get too far away from the question - stay on topic. Analysis should be the majority of your speech, don't just state evidence and move on. Use evidence as examples to answer the question.
2. Delivery: This includes projection, eye contact, physical pacing, tone, volume, enunciation, etc... Using a notecard is apart of this event; however, don't let it take away from your delivery. You should be looking at your notecard no more than 10% of the time, I recommend using a notecard for your evidence source and date
3. Evidence: Please do not make-up or misconstrue evidence, not only is this highly unethical, if I find out your evidence doesn't exist, you will be dropped in my rankings. Please cite your evidence; however, if you don't remember a date or publication - don't make one up. Cite evidence as if you were speaking to a general audience, use common sense - if it is a report, tell me the organization; a research paper, the author; an article, the publication company.

I love extemp: be confident and have fun!

Hello, I’m Jordan

Email: jordanhcalifornia@gmail.com

Important considerations:

-I have little experience in judging and debate

-It would be appreciated greatly if debaters could speak at a slow/moderate pace

-You can run any sort of argument you wish. I love seeing creative arguments with detailed logical analysis

-Rhetorical devices won’t be a big factor in how I judge the round

-Please be respectful to your opponents

-Because I am new to judging, I will usually wait to disclose the result of the round just so I can evaluate my flow, and try to compare both sides arguments as best as I can

I'm a parent judge.

For Yale:

Email: sunayhegde2017@gmail.com

Did LD In HS for 4 years at montville. Been removed from debate a bit now, so def go on the slower speed. Send speech docs before round and set up a email chain. Good with Policy args, theory and stock Ks (cap, security, etc..). Will vote on spikes, but probably dont read a nailbomb AC. Probably not great for phil and pomo. Since i've been out for a while Im probably rusty so better to overexplain args especially complicated perms, link chains,etc..

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 being 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 read 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 feelings 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.

Synthesis

1. Paragraph - you lose. This does not need to be an argument in the debate.
2. Read tags that is some like ….” Therefore.” I won’t flow it
3. Read a card that does not include a read warrant. This is meaningless in the debate.
4. Claiming a card says something that it clearing does not 25 spk loss. This does not need to be an argument in the debate. I will intervene period as you have no ethics for an activity that I care deeply about.
   
   

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 to 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.

Put me on the email chain csh7916@nyu.edu

(I'm only paying attention to what you read this is simply for reference at the end of the round and to make sure emails are sent somewhat promptly)

I do flow cross ex/crossfire but it must be in a speech if you want it voted on. I do believe cross is binding.

Background: I've done policy debate for years at Brooklyn Tech and I've judged Policy, PF, LD, speech, and Parli rounds before. I've run afropess, cap k, policy args, a decent amount of theory and have debated nearly every other mainstream arg (haven't hit death good, but I have read a bit). Having said that I'm fine with spreading just be clear, understand that virtual spreading is iffy if there's lag, and respectful of your opposition. I don't care about formal attire and don't take points for wearing sweats. My pronouns are she/her. If there are blatantly racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic arguments or statements and the opposition points it out and tells me its bad in any way and I agree you will lose (this is rather strict for example "black people are criminals" will have you voted down "stats show that black people in the US have higher arrest rates" will not, notice the difference even if I personally believe both are bad I will only vote down the former).

Top Line:

I'll vote for wtvr. That includes T, DAs (with impacts but hopefully you know that), Kritiks, Counter Plans, and theory. I know people are iffy on theory but I personally feel they make some of the best rounds. I mayyyy not be the judge for afro/asian -futurism especially if it's off planet, maybe it's just the rounds I've judged but I have issues resolving the alt.

Not So Recent Pet Peeves:

T needs an impact ( a voter). Standards and voters are not the same thing. Fairness is a standard and one I don't particularly care about especially without an impact/voter. Education because its the purpose of debate (this is weak but I can vote on something), fairness because they're unfair ... fairness because the world is unfair ... (what am I voting for if you get here and say "so people want to debate" thats weak but now I have something to vote on.

If I don't know what the aff is at the end of the round I'm probably voting neg on presumption, please have your story straight (k-affs if you tell me your aff world starts in reading the 1AC and then your partner says it starts with the ballot and I already don't know what the aff world lookalike other than what it somehow doesn't look like... good luck.)

I really despise the asian afropess aff ... do with that what you will. If I have to vote it up I will but I think answers against it are abundant and apparent.

Credits to William Cheung for the rest of the this

1) Have a claim, warrant, and impact to every argument. It isn’t an argument absent these three elements, and I will have trouble/not be able to/want to adjudicate what you’ve said.
2) Make sure, on that note to properly explain your positions, don’t make an assumption that I know your DA scenario (perhaps fill me in on the internal work), or K jargon. Maybe i haven't judged that many rounds this topic and don't understand abbreviations right away - help me out.
3) Have comparative analysis of evidence, arguments, and preformative styles as it compares to your own and how I ought to prioritize impacts as it relates to your framing of the round.
4) Be Persuasive, it will go a long way to making me to sign my ballot your way if you can make the round enjoyable, touching, funny, etc – it will also help your speaks.
5) Write the ballot for me in your last speech , tell me how you win. Take risks, and don’t go for everything. Make me think, “woah, cool, gonna vote on that” “What they said in the last rebuttal was exactly how I prioritized stuff too, judging is soooo easy [it's often not :(]"

Also, some other things:

1) I will default to competing interpretations on T and extinction unless alternative mechanisms of evaluating the round or alternative impacts are introduced and analyzed.
2) I will avoid looking at evidence, unless there is a dispute over evidence in a round or a debater spins it as part of being persuasive

3) Extend arguments if you want them to be voted on and no new args in the final speeches
4) I am an open minded judge, and respect all “realms” of debate, though of course, I will always already have some bias (I fully admit I am a K debater, although I do usually take FW and T on both sides), I will do my best to mitigate it.

Flow and respond to what the other team says.

I don't have the speech doc open so do things that make it easier for me to flow. Position yourself so I can hear you. Don't speak into your laptop or stand on the opposite side of the room. Don't read typed-out things like they are the text of a card. Slow down and change the intonation of your voice when you're speaking.

If I don't understand something, I will not vote on it even if it is conceded.

Corss-x starts right after the constructive speech ends.

Starting and stopping prep each time you need to use more prep time will cost at least 15 sec.

Very simply, if you have trigger warnings because the topics are more taboo then I am not the judge for you. If you can't explain it to your school administration or parents without them raising concerns then don't run it in front of me. Time and place are important.

Things I will not vote on (AUTO 25 Speaks):

Arguments that suggest students should engage in risky behavior.

Death is good.

Fear of death is bad

Aff's that don't defend the resolution.

Aff's that link to debate in general instead of the resolution.

Judge pref disclosure

Disclosure

Asking me to vote on something that happened before the debate round started.

Asking me to vote on something that happened after the debate round is over.

Vote for a team because they are part of a marginalized group.

Bataille

Baudrillard

Settler Colonialism

Deleuze

Psychoanalysis

ontological argument

epistemological arguments.

In fact, it would be better if you just didn't run a K.

PIC's

Condo CP's

Topical CP's

Consult CP's

conditions CP's

A Critique of Full Text Disclosure

Spreading bad

A Critique of Disclosure

Vote only for women

This list will be ongoing. I will update it to let you know.

So what is left you might ask:

Case debate

Topicality

Da's

CP's that are not listed above.

Other things you might want to know:

1. Da's can have a zero-risk.

2. Aff adv's can have zero risk

3. Solvency can have zero risk

4. Substantial will be important in these types of debates.

5. The neg will get a healthy dose of presumption.

I really would like to listen to a debate about the resolution.

Updates:

PF is different from Policy. PF shouldn't try and be policy. If you try to be policy in a PF then you won't be as successful. You don't need to spread. Few cards are better. Explaining good. Tagline extensions only are bad.

I have been judging lots of PF rounds. And here are some things you should know.

1. I am more truth over tech.
2. You might have evid on the world is flat. It doesn't mean it is true. The other team might not have evid on the world is round. I am still going to vote on the world is round, if they say it is round without evid.
3. The more internal links you have to your impact. The less likely it is.
4. Probability is more important than possibility.
5. Having 20 cards with two-sentence each won't get you very far.
6. Cutting evidence out of context is becoming a problem. Don't do that. Seriously, don't do that.
7. The big questions on the topic matter.
8. Common sense arguments are better than stupid arguments with cards.
9. Saying the other team dropped an argument when they didn't will cost you speaker points! I am tired of hearing this and I would suggest you flow.
10. I listen to cross-x. Cross-x is binding.
11. Spreading in PF is not needed. Your time is better spent going for fewer arguments better than lots of arguments poorly. The whole point is to collapse and explain.
12. When the timer goes off, I stop flowing.

Your evidence better match your claim. It is becoming a race to the bottom with evidence. If the evidence does not match your claim then I will not evaluate that argument. simple!

Maybe I am getting old. I like what I like. If you don't want to adapt to this judge then strike me. If you have me and don't feel the need to adapt then you take the risk on what happens at the end of the round, not me.

If you have questions before the round ask me.

UPDATE: 10/27/23---- Be on time! In fact, be early.

UPDATE: 9/25/24--- From everything I have read about public forum debate there are several key elements that make it different form policy debate.

1. accessible
2. conversational format
3. advocacy

Link debates are more important to me than your impact. If you can't win a substantial risk of your link then more than likely you won't win the debate. Comparing the risk assessment of the links (Pro vs Con) is very important.

Hello, I’m a former debater that has competed in UIL, TFA, and NSDA tournaments at both the state and national levels. I’m ok with any arguments as long as they make sense and are warranted.

Participated in PF Debate and IX all 4 years at Richardson HS

Now attending Southern Methodist University

General Paradigm: Honestly as long as you explain your arguments well and tell me why they matter (I'm big on impact calc.), I'll flow any case. This means clear warrants and links. I like to have my job be easier so tell me right from the start what I need to vote on and what stuff is important in the context of the round. If you don't do that I'll be forced to become a policymaker which means I may default to impacts that you may not have focused on. Summary and final focus speeches should be mirrored. This means the arguments that you flesh out and extend are the same ones you should be speaking about in the FF. Don't bother bringing up dropped/dead arguments near the end of the round. You are just gonna be wasting my time. When extending args, include the (warrants, links, and impacts). There is no excuse to not do this considering summary speeches are 3 minutes now. Again for me focus on Impact Calc. Make sure you give me voters on why your args matter, and why you win.

Speed: I can deal with moderately fast speed as long as you are clear. Slow down on taglines and for warrants that are crucial to your case. I will say clear once if I cannot understand/keep up. (Do not try and policy spread. I will not flow.)

Keep your own time. I will be keeping time as well.

I may ask for evidence at the end of the round

During CX , feel free to go all out. The more clash the better , and be well mannered during CX. Do not be afraid to go at it , but do it respectfully

Feel free to ask me about anything I may not have covered.

I am a "lay" judge and English is not my 1st language. Please speak clearly, do not speak too fast, explain thoroughly, and use simple
assumptions about my knowledge of the topic.

PF:

I am a flay judge but don't spread.

I favor tech over truth but don't go too far with this.

Make sure to extend your arguments in summary and final focus. Do not to bring up any points you dropped earlier in the round and if your opponent drops an argument, mention it.

In summary and final focus, please point out the key voter points of the round and collapse, it will help your case.

For organization in speeches, either be very clear in what point/contention you are talking about or just go down the flow. Also, please include an off-time roadmap.

I personally am not a fan of theory/critiques so I wouldn't recommend running them, but if you do, notify the other team before starting and make it as accessible as possible.

Any other types of debate:

I'm not very familiar with Policy, Parli, or LD so explain things very clearly. In the ending speeches, bring up voter points and state why I should vote for you.

Hello! I am your typical lay judge, but a few things:

• Speak slowly; It is more important that I understand your arguments and points than having more coverage of the flow
• Quality > quantity - don't go for every single argument that you read in case, because it makes summary and final focus crowded and confusing
• Be nice and respectful to your opponents. Don't speak over your opponents in cross and be polite. Rudeness will not be tolerated and will result in low speaker points and an automatic loss.
• truth > tech - arguments should not be super unrealistic and should have some logical reasoning.
• Weighing is important! Every argument is relative and nothing is absolute, so comparing the different points in the round will be very helpful in my ballot.
• If you are disrespectful, rude, or generally just way too aggressive, no questions asked, I will drop you.

I have a hard time following cases and clarity is often times sacrificed in a debate round, so send me as many speech documents as possible (most importantly case and rebuttal). The email is hutianle@gmail.com

hyt60435@gmail.com | college sophomore

TLDR: flow judge that hates progressive.

I have debated 4 years of nat PF during high school at Cranbrook, MI, judged and coached for 2 years after graduating.

No, I do not subscribe to the belief of Michigan Circuit that lay judges are preferred and I believe most debaters on the nat circuit don't either.

You can assume I know enough about the topic/stock arguments/abbreviations.

Assume I'm ready for your speech unless I say otherwise.

Don't include me in speech docs and email chains unless I specifically ask or if you're spreading. Anything under 250 -280 wpm or 1200 words don't need a doc.

I do not have a webcam. If this is important to you, let me know through email before round and I will switch to my laptop with a camera.

Similarly, I usually do not give a long RFD nor give long comments in Tabroom since no debater want to sit there for 20 minutes waiting for the round decision (with the exception of elims). However, if you have questions/think there are any important feedbacks I can provide, ask me post-round and I will be happy to email you/type up in Tabroom a much more detailed round feedback and how I considered each of your arguments.

Novice

Safely ignore everything below. Enjoy your time, have fun, and be polite.

Logistics

Do not adapt to me. If you're very good at speaking slowly and using narrative and analytical arguments, do that. If you only know how to spread 4 contentions, do that. I will adapt to your style and so long as you win on the flow, I will vote for you. Your style will not sway your speaks in any way.

The more I have to intervene in a round (cut you off for overtime, wait for a debater to show up, get asked how much prep you have left, etc), the lower your speaks will be. Please time yourself.

I will drop you if your case requires a trigger warning and it is not read at the beginning. I don't need a Google Form opt-out. Just read your warning before constructive or ask everyone before round.

If a piece of evidence is contested in the round, I will call for it again. If I find it to be paraphrased poorly or if you are misrepresenting the evidence, I will automatically drop you. If you're going to power-tag, don't let it be obvious.

I will usually disclose if there is longer than 20 minutes between round ending to next round release. I do not disclose in Novice/JV. Disclosure is a norm, not a rule. Do not post-round me. Asking questions with the intent of improving or asking for constructive criticism =/= postrounding.

Speed

Spreading is okay as long as you are clear. I will let you know clear once, and after that, if I still can't understand I will not evaluate your argument. In general, 300wpm is the max speed online, 350wpm in person, for clarity with a speech doc.

If you are online, remember that it's much harder to hear you over NSDA campus/Zoom.

Substance

Quality over quantity. More arguments or evidence doesn't guarantee a better case. Analytical arguments > card dump > "my evidence postdates yours"

Tech over truth. If your opponents tell me the moon is made of cheese with warranting, it's made of cheese until you point out otherwise with warranting. I'll be very happy if someone reads global warming turn because it encourages space exploration or arguments like that :).

Extend and weigh. Defense is not sticky. If you don't extend something (contention, internal links, defense, weigh, turn, etc.) through a speech, I will assume it's dropped. I will only flow the links, defense, etc you extend in speech. If the round is close, I will default to the weighing in round.

Collapse. Going for every contention through ink usually will not work out in your favor. Your time is better spent concentrating frontlines on your strongest contention.

Signpost. I flow on a laptop unless it's elims, the better your signposting, the better I will be able to understand and flow all your arguments. Giving me a roadmap before the speech will make this much easier.

DAs, OVs, etc. Please tell me what side to flow this.

You will almost never like how I vote if you don't write the ballot in final. Don't let me default to weighing or let me evaluate what evidence or analytics I should prefer. Give me the easiest path to the ballot and why I should prefer your arguments.

Default ballot to Neg. Aff has burden of proof.

I don't flow cross.

Progressive

If you're in PF I will not evaluate theory or K unless it is warranted extremely well. Most progressive arguments are warranted poorly, starting with a piece of evidence from NYU and in the next sentence citing a 1920s philosophy book. Don't read that. Debate on the same ground/topic as your opponents.

Even then, I cannot guarantee I will be able to vote correctly. My threshold for responses to theory is very low. A counterinterp is not necessary. Do not run disclosure theory. I will not vote for it.

That being said, I can acknowledge that PF is moving in the direction of more progressive debates. If you must run it, explain it to me like I'm a novice debater. I will vote on almost anything as long as it's warranted. If you're in varsity, I assume you know how to respond to theory and k properly.

Framework

TLDR: Util > other framing, other frameworks are fine just don't be abusive

Framework is fine. Framework that calls for a response in your opponent's constructive is not fine. Framework that is read in rebuttal is not fine. Default to util if no framework in either constructives. Cost/benefit = util framework. Framework =/= counter framework. You can read that in rebuttal.

If you read a framework with no warrant, I will not flow it.

If your framework is obviously a time suck or abusive towards the opponents I will drop you. If you aren't sure ask before the round.

In general, if you're defaulting to util, I highly suggest you write a 3-4 point warranting on why util is better (or just find one on Wiki) just in case.

I'm a lay judge. Be respectful and kind. Talk clearly

This is my 4th year as a parent judge. I do flow the rounds.

Speak clearly and reasonably paced. Extend arguments in your speeches. If opponent concedes, do call it out for me to count it

All the best!

Hi everyone! I'm Ben. I'm currently a student at Vanderbilt studying economics and history, and public policy. I debated for 3 years in PF for Myers Park on the nat circuit. I now do collegiate BP and coach/judge PF on the side for Myers Park and Canyon Crest Academy. You can call me Ben, not judge.

Add me to the chain- bgkkjacobs@gmail.com

Send all cases on an email chain with a label (ie. TOC R1F1 Myers Park BJ v Cary LJ).

I don't care what you wear. Speak how you want. Email me if you have any accessibility concerns before round.

My paradigm is too long. If you are just doing a trad/JV/Novice round and need my basic round preferences then read the stuff with a ❤️ by the title.

Debate is a game- play to win and have some fun.

TRAD>TOPICAL Ks> THEORY> NON TOPICAL Ks> ANYTHING ELSE

WEIGHING❤️-

• Weigh early and intentionally. Just saying I outweigh on scope so you should vote for me is barely anything. Name dropping STIMP is boring and usually promotes non comparative weighing. Think harder and deeper in your weighing if you can. Obviously these things are the building blocks of weighing and will be involved but don't expect saying "ours happens first so we outweigh on timeframe" to convince me to vote for you (timeframe doesn't matter until you tell me why it should).

• I don't hack for high magnitude low probability args or shorthand impacts- if you are telling me a nuclear winter is going to happen you need to give me a step by step warrant not just some random conspiracy theorist on the internet saying we are all going to go boom. Do the work on your impacts in case and I'll be very forgiving on late round extensions.

SPEED ❤️-

I will not flow spreading or flow off a doc (I like it when you send a doc but I won’t flow exclusively from it). I don't mind you talking fast and can flow faster than your average judge, but I don't enjoy flowing the absurd. The only time you should be using speed is for depth, not spamming arguments. The faster you go, the worse my flow gets and the worse my decision will be.

SPEECH PREFERENCES ❤️-

• Give me a quick off time roadmap before your speeches (ex. "My case then their case"). That's it.
• I RARELY FLOW CARD TAGS so just remind me what the card says if you are telling me to flow through a response.
• Make explicit strategic choices. I want to see you collapse and build a late round narrative. If you choose your path to the ballot with a minute left in final you probably won't win.

THEORY-

Theory is usually boring. I don't mind paraphrasing and I think that too few teams think critically about the values of disclosure. Nevertheless, you should come to the round prepared to defend the way in which you debate if it is outside the norms of the nat circuit. I will vote on disclo and I will vote on para, I just don't like those rounds much. Feel free to run whatever, but my threshold for DTD/DTA gets high when theory gets frivolous.

It is my expectation that any debater in varsity on the nat circuit can defend against theory. This does not mean beating up on first time nat circuit debaters is a good idea for me (high speaks will be very hard to obtain), it just means "I don't know how to respond" will never be any form of defense.

Ks- These are fun. I was not a K debater but definitely had K rounds. I am an okay judge for these as long as you explain your lit well.

The Non Topical K

If we can link everything in debate (even organic agriculture) to nuke war then you can link every topic to feminism, the patriarchy, cap, etc. I think the ability to link these in are an important skill for a K debater. You can try to change my mind, I won't auto vote down a performance K or other non topical K because I recognize that they have had some positive impact on the debate space- I just need a really valid reason as to why you are choosing not to be topical (that means strong , practiced prep against T shells).

The topical K

I am happy to hear a topical K, they are super fun if they are run well. I may have read some of your literature but pretend I am unfamiliar entirely, because, more frequently than not, I am. I hate Ks that are needlessly complex. It is your job as a debater to simplify your arguments for presentation or it is hard for me to vote.

If you have reached this point in my paradigm then tell me the starting lineup of any NBA team and I will floor my speaks at 29 (no cheating...). You can also tell me your favorite TV show and I'll bump everyone's speaks +1 for actually reading my ramble.

POSTROUNDING

I always disclose. I already submitted the ballot but you can tell me you think my decision was wrong if it makes you feel better (it might have been). I love answering questions and will stick around as long as I can so don't be afraid to ask.

QUICK IN-PERSON ROUND NOTE ❤️

I need two pieces of paper to flow on.

My paradigm as a public forum debate judge is based on the following criteria:

1. Clarity: I value debaters who are able to articulate their arguments in a clear and concise manner. I expect debaters to explain their arguments thoroughly and avoid overly complex language or jargon.

2. Evidence: I value debaters who use relevant and credible evidence to support their arguments. I will evaluate the quality and relevance of evidence presented and consider how well it supports the argument being made.

3. Clash: I value debaters who engage in substantive back-and-forth argumentation with their opponents. I will evaluate the quality and depth of the debaters' responses to the arguments presented by the other team.

4. Persuasiveness: Ultimately, I will decide which team has persuaded me that their arguments are the most compelling. I will evaluate how well debaters have made their case and used evidence to support their position.

5. Rules: I expect debaters to comply with the rules of the debate, including time limits, cross-examination rules, and other procedures. I may deduct points or disqualify a team for violations of the rules.

6. Decorum: I expect debaters to maintain a professional and respectful demeanor throughout the debate. I may deduct points for disrespectful or uncivil behavior.

I will use these criteria to evaluate the arguments presented by each team and make a decision on which team has won the debate. I encourage debaters to ask questions before or after the debate if they have any concerns about my paradigm or the criteria I will be using to judge the debate.

Flay judge.

"People have become educated, but have not yet become human.” - Abdul Sattar Edhi.

TLDR;

Do whatever you want, but do impact calculus.

A Little About Me:

I competed for Dougherty Valley High School between 2015 to 2019 in Public Forum and Extemp. It's been a number of years since I was involved in the debate space and I'm sure PF has changed since I left. I am generally okay with any type of argument, but I have limited experience with K's and Theory. You will benefit if you slow down while presenting these types of arguments.

Specific To Stanford 2024:

I am fine with spreading but I would highly prefer you email speech docs to your judge beforehand.

On The Juicy Stuff.

I am a Tabula Rasa (Clean Slate) judge so I will believe anything you tell me, but it needs to be warranted. I try to limit my judge intervention as much as I can, however, I won't be afraid to intervene is if there is no impact calculus in the round. Other than that, I'm fine with any type of argument you throw at me, and you can speak as fast as you want.

I will try to be a visible judge so if I start shaking my head maybe don't go for that argument, but if I am nodding that's probably a good sign. I use my computer to flow. I will yell clear if it is too fast, but my threshold is pretty good, but if you want to full-on spread please flash me the speech doc so I know whats going on.

Tech > Truth.

Time Yourselves.

I evaluate framework and overviews right on top. I love it when I know what impacts are going to be the most important, and which impacts I should prefer. This helps you organize and helps me understand what the narrative of your team is. I love, love, love overviews/underviews and think they make Public Forum Debate interesting.

Please sign post, especially in Summary and Final Focus.

Whatever is in Final Focus must be in Summary, however I am totally ok with you extending defense from rebuttal to final focus if you are the first speaking team. This is because I believe that Public Forum Debate is structurally disadvantaged for the first speaking team. That means first summary obviously needs to have all your offense. I will literally stop flowing if the argument in Final Focus is not in Summary.

I love it so much when teams collapse into two to three issues in Final Focus. I love it when teams blow up impacts in Summary and Final Focus and use the ends of their speeches to do Impact Calculus. This is really important, I NEED good impact calculus to evaluate who I vote for. I need to know why you win on things like Probability, Magnitude, or Time-Frame and I need to know why those are more important than what your opponents are going for. If you don't know what impact calc is do some reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_calculus

I award speaks based on how you speak, and how you conduct yourself in cross. If you are blatantly rude, offensive, racist, sexist, etc. I will not be afraid to vote you down and nuke your speaks.

I will always call for evidence if you tell me to call for it. I am bad at remembering tags, but I definitely call for cards.

PLEASE FOLLOW NSDA/CHSSA (Depending on the tourney) EVIDENCE RULES AND HAVE EVIDENCE ETHICS. I need to hear author last name and date in the speech, otherwise its just rhetoric.

On other arguments. I'm totally ok with things like K's, Theory, whatever else but do know that I personally have minimal experience with K's or theory shells so I will need these types of args to be well warranted and explained.

If you have ANY questions about my paradigm or my decisions please do not be afraid to ask.

If you are funny and not offensive, I'll probably up your speaks.

Good Luck!

Also I think the way that I view debate is very similar to Shreyas Kiran, so check out his paradigm if you are bored.

Email me at TheSaadJamal@gmail.com if you have any questions.

I am a Georgia Tech CS student and debated public forum for the several years. Here are the things I would like to emphasize:

-Any speed is fine, but clarity is needed. I cannot judge on what I cannot understand. Please try to refrain from spreading if you can though.

-Make sure to weigh and use off time road maps so I can better comprehend and create my RFD.

-Time yourselves, though I will also keep track of time myself as well, so watch your time and do not go over. Prevent any down time so that we can finish the round on time. That includes calling for a card, which should be minimal.

-Be respectful. This should be self-explanatory.

-I habitually place the rebuttal and summary as the most important speeches so make sure those are solid.

-I have been screwed by judges with personal opinions before, so you can be certain that I will not place any personal bias against you or the opposition. What you show me is what I decide from.

-Preflow before the round.

-Disads, kritiks, and theory are fine by me.

-Speaks: Do not be disrespectful, and you can expect a fair score.

-I mainly give oral feedback rather than written.

Any other questions should be addressed before start time.

I am a parent judge, who prefers clear speaking, logical links, elaborate policy explanation, and precise points.

Please don't assume I know everything about your topic, and be mindful of your target audience (formal).

I'm also not really a fan of jargon, so please thoroughly explain it when you use it.

I competed in Public Forum and some Interp/Speech at J.P. Taravella High School. Judged my last year before returning to it in late 2022.

Generally, I am a flow judge. I'll plot the arguments, whether they've been successfully turned, refuted, defended, and carried throughout the round and vote on my observations therein. However, I place heavy emphasis on linkage between arguments, impacts, and the topic. If you can weave into your case an argument that systematically demonstrates how the resolution's chain of events leads to an impact, it will be hard to dissuade me, and I find that the line-by-line argumentation defending or refuting that linkage can lead to a wonderful clash/debate.

I've been frustrated by poor judge feedback in the past and I've made it a point to use my flow to point out missed opportunities, places where the argument may be improved, and leaving no room to contest as to why I decided a round. The care I aspire to put into a ballot means I've got to spend some time on it and organize my thoughts, so it's unlikely that I can explain my reason for my decision immediately after the round's end, but I may try :).

Debate was formative for me. I hope it is for you, too. Have a good debate!

As a judge in this public forum debate, I seek three important things. First, keep it simple and clear when you talk. Don't use fancy words that make things confusing. I want everyone, including me, to understand your points easily.

Second, I like to see a good back-and-forth, where you respond to what the other team says. It's not just about saying your own thing; it's about clashing with the other side's ideas. Make sure you're talking directly to each other's points.

Lastly, stick to the main topic. Don't go off on unrelated stuff. Keep your arguments connected to what we're here to discuss. Doing these things'll make the debate interesting and easy to follow, which is what I'm looking for as a judge in this tournament.

I am a flay judge. I usually vote off of logical arguments with solid evidence and weighing.

I am a linguist by training so your language of debate matters to me. I like clear and comprehensible speeches, meaning you might have to slow down a bit (I'll give extra speaker points to those speakers)

I also care about being courteous and professional during your debate, meaning I would never vote for those who are too aggressive and rude.

I am a lay judge.

I am interested in well organized opening arguments supported by good research.  I also would like to hear thoughtful and to the point rebuttals to opponent's contentions/counter arguments. 

brand new Parent Judge. Please talk slowly and clearly

will give high speaks
To help me follow speeches, please send cases to my email nan.jiang1@gmail.com

few things to keep in mind
1. Be nice and respectful
2. NO debate jargon
3. Be persuasive
4. Keep track of time and don't abuse it
5. Most importantly, have fun

I will not disclose

Cross will be an important section in which I will listen to

• Parent Judge, your job is to convince ME why you have won, think as if you're presenting to a person who has no idea about the topic
• Don't speak too fast. Spreading or reading too fast will cost you, might not catch arguments on the flow
• Eye contacts and body languages are also important
• No arguments based on politics

Voting Issues

• Direct clashes between arguments
• Weighing the two arguments

I cannot stress this enough, but please speak slowly and make sure to reiterate your points.

Most of all, respect your opponents and have fun!

Your arguments have to make sense. If you think your argument is stronger, show me why. Show me why your evidence or logic is better don't just tell me it is. I don't want two ships passing in the night. I want well organized clash. You have to flow drops. If your opponent drops and you don't flow and point it out, I won't consider it. You need to manage and extend arguments effectively throughout the debate. Don't drop an argument early and then try to extend it later. Ethics are important. Communication is very important. Especially in a digital debate. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. I'm fine with speed if all competitors in the round are fine with speed. I don't vote on plans/counterplans in PF. All other argumentation is up to you.

If there is an email chain, please include me in the chain.

rpjohn14@asu.edu

Experience: Two years of policy in high school, just finished fourth year of APDA/BP in college at UChicago.

Theory: It's annoying, I will vote on it if necessary but will be looking for other places to vote, so be convincing if you do run it.

I am tech > truth, but please still substantiate and warrant your arguments, if they are not warranted then it will reflect in speaks and decision and will impact how the round is weighed. Dropped arguments are absolutely conceded, but make them good arguments to begin with. Crazy arguments are fine if you give warrants (e.g. you must convince me that the U.S. has one billion nukes, instead of simply asserting it). I will not vote on good arguments for which warrants were not given if I can help it.

Evidence: I am of the mind that evidence should support your arguments, they should not be your arguments. That is, you can say "X will happen because Y source says Z occurs, and Z causes X." This is a fully fleshed out argument, and then you can weigh X against other impacts. Obviously the way your arguments and evidence is constructed will probably vary a lot, and that's fine. Being convincing is the most important part so this is not a hard and fast rule.

Framework: Give one if you want, otherwise I just use cost-benefit analysis. Conceded frameworks are taken as true and I will use them to vote on the round; if you're giving a counter framework then you must prove why yours is better.

Generally: Collapse strategically and on what you win on; my ballot is decided by what are in the final speeches. If you talk about something in those speeches, I take that as a sign that you want me to vote on that issue. Some speed is ok if you're clear, if I can't hear then the things I didn't hear just won't be on my flow.Do not spread. I prefer live docs with speech docs/evidence pasted before each speech, including rebuttals and summary. On crossfire, I am not flowing but I am listening, and if you want to use a crossfire response in your speech then by all means please do.

Don't just say the name of a card. Have a very brief summary of what the card says because that is how I remember it.

And weigh, weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

Be nice and respectful, use the proper pronouns, give content warnings where needed. Just be a decent person please; not being a decent person will be reflected in speaks and/or in decision. And of course, have fun :)

Email: samuel.johnson.fop@gmail.com

I am okay with judging anything in round. I firmly believe that debates should be left up to the debaters and what they want to run. If you want to read policy or a new kritik; I am good with anything y'all as debaters want to run. Do not read anything that is homophobic, racist, ableist, or sexiest in round. Debate should be a safe place for everyone. A little bit about me I was a 1A/2N my senior year. I recently graduated from Sac State with a major in Communications and Women's Studies. I am currently applying to Law school and will be attending a law school in fall of 2024. I am currently a policy coach for the Sacramento Urban Debate League, coaching at Ghidotti, CKM, and West Campus.

Kritikal Affs: I love identity politics affirmatives. They are one of my favorite things to judge and hear at tournaments. I ran an intersectional k aff my senior year. If you run an identity politics affirmative then I am a great judge for you. For high theory k affs I am willing to listen to them I am just not as well adapted in that literature as identity politics. But on the negative, I did run biopower.

Policy Affirmative: Well duh.... I am good at judging a hard-core policy round or a soft-left affirmative. Once again whatever the debaters want to do I am good with judging anything.

Framework: I feel like the question for framework that debaters are asking here is if I am more of a tech or truth kind of judge. I would say its important for debaters to give me judge instruction on how they want to me to judge the round. If you want me to prefer tech or truth you need to tell me that, and also tell me WHY I should prefer tech or truth. The rest of the debate SSD, TVAs etc need to be flushed out and not 100% blipy. But that's pretty much how I feel like with every argument on every flow.

CP/DA: Do whatever is best for you on how many you want to bring into the round.

Theory: I will be honest; I am not the best at evaluating theory arguments. I know what they are, and you can run them in front of me. But if you go for them, judge instruction is a must, and explaining to me how voting for this theory shell works for the debate space etc.

I like being told what to vote for and why. I am lazy to my core. If I have to look at a speech doc at the end of the round I will default to what happened in the round, not on the doc.

On a side note, go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook. Also, I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

I am a lay judge and this is my first-time judging.

Please speak at a conversational pace, if it's too fast I can't consider it at all. No technical jargon or progressive things.

Do not depend on arguments being flowed - instead, focus more on the general argument and reasoning as to why your contention should win and why the opponents' should not.

Being very explicit with this comparative analysis will help you as my decision is more intuition based (due to being a first-time judge ever), but also focus on partner cohesion and effective presentation.

Truth >>>>> Tech.

Quality > Quantity.

Please explain everything very clearly and layify as much as possible.

When you use weighing mechanisms explain what they mean to me and make the ballot as clear as possible.

Please do not expect flow level feedback for the round on a line by line format, this is my first time judging so please keep that in mind as you debate.

hi! i'm sky.

please conflict me if i've coached you before. i've marked many of you as conflicts, but it is impossible to get all of you when you attend multiple schools, debate academies, etc. i'll always report conflicts to tabroom.

email. add spjuinio@gmail.com and nuevadocs@gmail.com to the chain.

please try to have pre-flows done before the round for the sake of time. i like starting early or on time.

tech over truth. i don't intervene, so everything you say is all i will evaluate. to win my ballot, you should explain and contextualize your arguments. try not to rely too much on jargon. only use jargon if you know how. extend evidence properly and ensure that your cards are all cut correctly (please refer to the NSDA evidence rules). otherwise, i strike the evidence from my flows. tell a thoughtful and thorough story that follows a logical order (i.e. how do you get from point A to point E? why should i care about anything you are telling me? i should have more answers than questions by the end of your speeches). pursue the points you are winning and explain why you have won the round. remind me how you access your impacts and do NOT forget to weigh. giving me the order in which i should prioritize the arguments read in round is helpful. generally, judge instructions will help you and me. sounding great will earn you high speaks, but my ballot will ultimately go to those who did the better debating.

read any argument you want, wear whatever you want, and be as assertive as you want. any speed is fine as long as you are clear. i will yell "clear!" if you are not. as nueva gc artfully articulated, "feel the rhythm, feel the ride, get ready, it's spreading time!" my job is to listen to you and assess your argumentation, not just your presentation. i'm more than happy to listen to anything you run, so do what you do best and own it!

i always try to time speeches. it is strongly encouraged that you also time yourselves and your opponents. speeches get a 15-second grace period, though you should try to finish punctually. i stop flowing after 15 seconds have passed.

teams who use hateful language automatically lose. i’ll end rounds early if given a compelling reason to (e.g. evidence violations).

want to sit, stand, or do a sick backflip while you speak? do whatever you're comfortable with (maybe skip the backflip).

don't be mean. don't lie. don't shake my hand.

rfds. i always try to give verbal rfds and feedback so you can improve in your next round/competition. write down or type suggestions that you find helpful (this might help you flow better). feel free to ask me any questions, but do not fight me on my decision. i also accept emails and other online messages. i miiiiight not disclose if you're part of the first flight and/or the next round is expedited.

now, specifics!

topicality. tell me which arguments should be debated and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion. make sure your arguments are compatible with your interpretation. if you go for framework, give clear internal link explanations and consider having external impacts. explain why those impacts ought to be prioritized and win you the round.

theory. make it purposeful. tell me what competing interpretations and reasonability mean. i like nuanced analyses; provide real links, real interpretations, and real-world scenarios that bad norms generate. tell me to prioritize this over substance and explain why.

counter-plans. these can be fun. however, they should be legitimately competitive. give a clear plan text and take clever perms seriously. comparative solvency is also preferred. impact calculus is your friend.

disadvantages. crystallize! remember to weigh. your uniqueness and links also matter.

kritiques. i love these a lot. i enjoy the intellectual potential that kritiques offer. show me that you are genuine by committing to the literature you read and providing an anomalous approach against the aff. alternatives are important (though i have seen interesting alternatives to...alternatives. if you go down this route, you can try to convince me that your argument is functional without one. as with all arguments, explain your argument well, and i might vote for you). as aforementioned, tell me to prioritize your argument over substance and why.

cross. i listen, but i will not assess arguments made in crossfires unless you restate your points in a speech. try to use this time wisely.

evidence. again, please cut these correctly (linking the NSDA evidence rules in case). i'll read your evidence at the end of the round if you ask me to, if your evidence sounds too good to be true, or if your evidence is essential to my decision in some fashion. however, this is not an excuse for being lazy! extend evidence that you want me to evaluate, or it flows as analysis. make sure to identify card(s) correctly and elaborate on their significance. don't be afraid to compliment your card(s). consider using your evidence to enhance your narrative coherence.

public forum debaters should practice good partner coordination, especially during summary and final focus. consider taking prep before these speeches because what you read here can make or break your hard work. arguments and evidence mentioned in the final focus need to have been brought up in summary for me to evaluate it. i flow very well and will catch you if you read new arguments, new evidence, or shadow extensions. none of these arguments will be considered in my ballot, so please do not waste time on them. additionally, i don't like to (and tend not to) evaluate purely analytical arguments in the back half. you should read carded links and impacts minimum. focus on the arguments you are winning and please weigh, meta-weigh, and crystallize!

tl;dr. show me where and why i should vote. thanks :)

you are all smart. remember to relax and have fun!

She/her

Background: 3x nats senate 1x toc congress, 1x toc info 2x nietoc various events, decent amount of experience in PF, I understand LD and progressive debate but I've never done it done it and so better to err on the side of caution if you are going to get funky, if I'm judging policy then we all better put our big brain hats and cross our fingers

add me: alexandrakallaher@gmail.com

Some things to consider if I'm judging you no matter event + a note on online judging:

1. Signpost. You could have the best refutation ever but if you don't signpost I might miss it.

2. don't be rude, debate is supposed to be accessible and fun for everyone, so respect your opponents! Debaters who look like they're having a good time are way more fun to judge.

3. If for some personal or act of god reason you need to step away from the computer please just say something. I will do my absolute best to accommodate you within timely reason.

4. Speed isn't an issue for me but online there might be some lag problems so just know your wifi.

5. I enjoy niche arguments in every event as long as they aren't unfairly specific

Some things to consider if I'm judging you in Congressional Debate:

1. Key word up there is debate. I highly value refutation in congress speeches. No worries if you give an authorship, but try to show me different facets of your argumentation skills and speaking styles. I'm judging on a holistic model of who is the best legislator in the round- not necessarily who has the best argument or speech.

2. I'm not a fan of when no one is prepared to give speeches. If you get up to give a speech because there is a lull, even if you are not perfectly prepared, I will mentally award you brownie points and it will contribute to the "best legislator" notion.

3. I do pay more attention to CX in congress than other debates because of how few times you get to speak. But it won't make or break you. That being said, if you ask the same question again and again to different speakers I will probably find you annoying and not contributing to the debate.

4. I love crystallizations and later round speeches in congress. If you are giving the last speech do not give a constructive. Congress is about engagement and adaption. If you give a constructive 13 speeches in the debate I am going to wonder what you have been doing. The later the cycle goes the more weighing should be done.

5. I value argument>speaking 99% of the time. But, congress does have speaking elements to it. As long as you are loud and clear we should not have a problem. It is nice if you don't look at your flow pad too much.

Some things to Consider I'm judging you in PF/LD:

1. Voters. I will vote off of what you tell me to. If a team doesn't give me voters I default to the other teams. Be clear and do the work for me and I won't care

2. Weigh

3. I'm tech can be over truth but I do like hearing warrants and am responsive to teams calling out logical gaps/ inconsistencies in link chains

4. If you want me to read a card than tell me to call for the card otherwise sry bud

5. Don't flow cross so if something happens than you better bring it up in a speech

A note on Theory and K's:

1. Theory is necc. to keep debaters in check but I'm not a fan of tricks, time wasters or other trivial nonsense. Please explain it clearly like you are talking to your well educated but slightly demented grandma

2. running theory just to be strategic kinda makes me queasy and I will have more leniency for your opponent if it's silly

3. Running theory against clearly inexperienced debaters is a form of abuse in itself

Background: 2x North Dakota State Champion (Speech to Entertain, Extemporaneous Speaking)

Assistant Coach -- North Dakota, California

IE/PD/LD Judge -- North Dakota, Minnesota, California

How do I judge Speech?

The round begins before it begins. First impressions last. Be courteous. Conduct yourselves as young adults throughout. Please do not get up in front of the room until you are called. Judges are often still writing on the previous speaker and do not wish to be rushed. When we're ready, we will indicate. It is disrespectful to enter or leave a round while someone else is speaking. If a competitor AND/OR her/his spectators break decorum, this will be reflected in scores/rankings. Understand your selection. How is the character's voice different from your own? Be highly specific. Take risks, but justified. It's never a gesture for a gesture's sake, or atypical movement to be atypical. Incredible things never happen when you play it safe.

How do I judge Debate? Your presentation (PATHOS) must be on par with your arguments (ETHOS, LOGOS). Persuade us. Debate is NOT about overwhelming us with information. Rapid-fire speaking, fact bombs and excessive spreading are exhausting. This is not debate. If I can't understand you, how do you expect me to ascertain the unintelligible? If I don't believe your conviction, how do you expect to convince me? Say less = say more. Choose facts carefully. Flow clearly. Articulate. Always show respect for your opponents. Lack of civility damages credibility.

DEBATERS, PLEASE READ -- Feel free to time yourselves. But if you choose to time your opponents, 1) turn off your alarms, 2) NEVER tell your opponents "time" and 3) respect that the judge's time is the official time.

I am a lay Judge . Speak clearly and slowly

I was a PF debater in high school (I graduated in 2020). I'm a flow judge, tech > truth. If there is 0 offense left in the round, I will presume for the team that was more polite in crossfire. If both teams were pretty polite, I'll presume neg. However, if you want to read other presumption arguments, I am happy to listen to them.

- I did pf in high school but it's been a fat minute

General

- tech>truth. However, for very silly arguments I have a lower threshold for responses.

- I prefer solid warranting over unclear or blippy evidence

- If neither side effectively interacts with the other I'll vote based on what's been extended the most cleanly

- First summary should extend defense- spend time on it if it's important, but at least restate the card or something if it's unresponded to in second rebuttal AND if its clearly explained. If you drop defense in first summary you can extend it in first final focus but the reason I'd prefer you don't is because I don't want to miss anything and accidentally cost you the round. Basically, defense can be sticky but I’d prefer that it isn’t.

- Second rebuttal HAS to frontline turns/offense and should frontline defense unless they a. have a very solid reason not to or b. want to make the round harder for themselves.

- WEIGH. Also metaweigh.

- If you being up a new argument in second sum/ff or first ff I won’t vote off of it

- I have no experience with Ks/Theory but if you want to run them treat me like a lay. That being said, don't bother with 30 speaks theory unless you'd like a rather ironic outcome.

- Extend otherwise things get dropped

Evidence

- I'll only call for it if I think it's important and/or if I’ve been told to

Speaks

- You can spread but don’t be obnoxious

- I’d prefer not to read speech docs; it’s an unfair advantage when I understand one side better simply because I read their arguments myself

- If you crack a good joke I’ll bump your speaks slightly

- Good cases, signposting, collapsing, and clarity get good speaks

- Misconstrued evidence and rudeness will get bad speaks

Other

- Signpost!

- I'll stop flowing speeches if they go over more than 10 seconds

- I’m chill if you skip grand cx and take 1 minute of prep instead

- I don’t flow cross

- Don't be rude, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc even if you want the subsequent L and lowest speaks

- Feel free to post round as much as you like, just don't be rude

- If you get nervous during your speech, it's perfectly normal, so just take a moment to breathe and remind yourself debate is a FUN activity.

- If you have questions please ask :)

- Have fun!

Hello! I have judged several PF rounds and know the general layout of the round, and have some preferences.

1. Please be respectful towards your teammates and judges - I do not and will not tolerate disrespect towards anyone in a round. Please have manners when speaking to opponents and refrain from acting aggressively or rudely.
2. Please make sure you're speaking at a volume that is audible for both your opponents and judges. Try not to mumble, especially if you're spreading. Do not purposefully speak low to hurt your opponents. If you are going to spread, do it mindfully. If I cannot understand you, I cannot follow your argument, and if you know you're going to go very fast, offer to share cases.
3. I judge based on your ability to defend your points. Being able to successfully make me believe that your points are stronger and better than your opponents will lead to you winning my ballot.

But most importantly, don't forget to have fun!

Seven lakes High School '21 | University of Texas at Dallas '24

contact: pkasibhatla4@gmail.com

He/Him

Debate experience:

I mainly participated in PF debate throughout high school at both local and national tournaments

PF:

- I am a standard flow judge who evaluates tech over truth.

- Okay with any arguments along as they are not offensive, racist, homophobic, etc.

- I am fine with speed as long as everyone in the round can clearly hear the arguments. I do not like spreading.

- Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine as long as you don't blatantly misconstrue the evidence. When providing paraphrased evidence please give the specific line that you reference. Evidence ethics are important, call your opponents out for any misconstrued evidence, false claims or any lies.

- Speaker points: Speaker points are awarded based on strategy and obviously how well you speak. As mentioned above, I will dock both speaker points and drop you if you have bad evidence ethics. Moreover, i'll give bonus speaker points if the round is entertaining and respectful. Being rude and loud will only decrease your speaker points so don't do that

- Give a roadmap of the speech beforehand and signpost throughout the speech.

- To extend an argument you must extend the contention name, the name of the cards and more importantly what the card says. You can't just tell me to extend 'x card' without telling me why the card is important to both your argument and the round. Speaking of extensions, the round should flow from your constructive to the final focus. The second rebuttal should respond to all offensive arguments or I consider them as drops. First summary must extend arguments and defense if it's responded to in second rebuttal. I will more than likely be voting on both the cleanest argument.

- Weighing is great, the more you weigh throughout the round the easier it is for me to vote. Please start weighing during rebuttals. New weighing after second summary is too late and I will not evaluate that.

- Any arguments or concessions during Cross must be brought up in speeches.

- If you read a framework, read warrants. The Framework debate must include weighing.

- Final focus should have the same arguments as summary

Email me if you have any questions!

***ALL cards read during ANY speech need to be sent in the email chain PRIOR to the speech. If you are not comfortable adapting to this standard, please strike me

North Broward '20 Wake Forest '24

Quartered @ TOC and have minimal college policy experience

Head Public Forum Coach @ Quarry Lane

Email: katzto20@wfu.edu

tech>truth

I would prefer both teams talk about the topic. I have given up on judging bad PF theory / K debates.

debate is a game and the team that plays the best will win.

Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

Background – Debater for over 6 years and an experienced judge in multiple formats.

General Notes for speakers:

· I)I appreciate organized speeches which are clear to follow. The manner, style, vocabulary and pace of the speech doesn’t matter insofar as the speech is able to communicate the depth and meaning of the argument and case.

· II)Healthy environment must be maintained during speeches i.e. AVOID: - a) condescending behavior to opponents, b) passing rude and stereotypical statements about particular community which might be offensive to majority of rational individuals, c)Racist, sexist and homophobic prejudicial behavior, d)Generally abusive and unfair tone.

· III)Use material which would be understandable by an average reasonable voter.

· IV)Customization, innovation and uniformity in arguments is always cherished

· V)Feel free to reach out to me via mail for any queries or assistance.

Arguments and Cases:

· I) I do not have any preference in terms of which Type of arguments matter more, however I sit with an open mind for the speakers to convince or sell argument want me to buy through their Persuasiveness. (you should be able to sell a comb to a bald person)

· II) Analysis to the arguments- simply stating a fact isn’t enough until and unless you prove :-a)why a particular fact matters more than others, b) how it is relevant, c)Implication of the argument, d) evidence to support the facts, e) Analysis to core issues and trends to support the consistency and applicability of an argument.

· III) Give taglines to flag out your arguments – i.e. while giving a speech which includes *why pollution is bad* - the taglines can be a) Pollution is bad because it has health hazards to humans , b) Pollution is bad because it impacts climate change and c) Pollution impacts economy. These headlines can further be analyzed.

· IV) Counter proposals/ plans – if you wish to introduce counter proposals, try to analyze and extend the comparative of the benefits of your opponent’s plan and your counter plan. For eg. You can compare it by means of feasibility, efficiency, cost benefit analysis, time saving etc.

· V) Comparative – be comparative and weigh as to why your impacts have stronger stance than your opponents. Make the specific links of “where your side is comparatively better and how?”

· VI) Uniformity – it is important to establish a clear stance of the team and becomes easier to follow. Any inconsistency in form of contradiction, doubts or hesitation shows non uniformity of the bench which reduces the integrity of the case. Insofar as the contradiction isn’t huge enough which might change the entire meaning and impacts of your case, it doesn’t impact you much with respect to speaker score, otherwise you might attract certain penalties based on the degree of contradiction.

VII) Engagement - Rebuttals and clashing is very valuable to judge the closest teams in a round. Simply reading prewritten cards aren’t enough to win a debate, you need to modify and adapt in order to outweigh your opponents. Prove why you are right and disprove your opponents. Weight your benefits with theirs, compare your harms with theirs and tell why your world is still better than your opponents.

Speaker scores

The ballots reflected will be based on following criteria

· 1) Overall performance in terms of arguments, analysis and engagement.

· 2) Quality of speeches irrespective of whether you win or lose.

· 3) Any form of racism, sexism, ableism and homophobia seen in your speeches will tank your scores.

I am a non-native English speaker. I have a limited knowledge of public policy and politics in America, so be sure to paint a picture for me that gives me the whole context of your argument and the debate itself. Please refrain from speaking too fast, and be clear and intentional with your arguments. Debate as if your judge were a fellow high school student. Finally, be kind and courteous to your opponents and carry yourself with optimism and happiness!

I’m a parent judge, and this is my third year in debate. I try my best to heed the counsel of acting like an uninformed, impartial juror in assessing performance, awarding speaker points, and deciding on the winner. To do well, please:

- Speak clearly and at a normal speed

- Present a logical argument where it’s easy to follow your main contentions and supporting points

- Be consistent in your arguments in each speaker phase

- Use an off-time road map for extra clarity

- When weighing, please make believable assertions. I do internally roll my eyes when a student makes an unsupportable assertion (e.g., "this will save 100 million lives")

- Be respectful of your opponents – let them speak, minimize interruptions, positive body language. Rudeness, disrespectful behavior, or passive-aggressiveness will not be rewarded

- Relax and have fun

Not that I’ve ever experienced this as a judge, but anything said that's homophobic, ableist, racist, etc. is going to result in a "L" for your ballot and lowered speaker points

TLDR: flow judge, I want to judge a slow-ish round (~200 WPM or less), please collapse and weigh, I like unique arguments and impact turns :)

NOVICE: Relax and try your best! I won't be super technical, so don't worry about strictly following and understanding everything in my paradigm. Focus on presenting your arguments clearly and try to respond to all of your opponent's attacks during your speech!

I prefer SpeechDrop over email chain for sharing docs.

Background

I'm a current student at the University of Illinois studying computer science and philosophy. I competed in PF for Adlai E. Stevenson (2020 - 2023). This is my second year judging PF (everything from locals to natcirc finals). I've also judged trad LD, speech, and congress.

Style Preferences

I can judge speed assuming you send docs (marked!), but I don't want to unless you're exceptionally clear. I don't like super fast rounds because they encourage debaters to give blippy warrants and lazy weighing.

Summary + Final Focus: Follow an “our case, weighing, their case” structure. I’m not a fan of structuring the debate in terms of “voters issues.”

COLLAPSE ON MAX ONE CONTENTION AND/OR ONE TURN. The less offense I have to evaluate, the more confident I will be in my decision.

QUALITY > QUANTITY. I’m not a fan of spamming lots of one-line blips in rebuttal and calling it a day. I will not implicate/warrant out arguments for you.

I think unique arguments and impact turns are great! I usually give high speaks (29+) to teams that innovate and go outside the meta.

How to Win My Ballot

Step 1: Don’t be a bad person (_ist, _phobic, etc.)

Step 2: Win some offense (under the given framework)

Step 3: Outweigh OR win terminal defense against your opponent’s offense

How to Win Offense

Extend the link and impact of the argument you’re going for. You don't need to extend internal links unless they're heavily contested. To extend the link/internal link/impact, you need to briefly explain what the link/internal link/impact is and successfully respond to all terminal defense against it. This applies to turns as well!

If nobody wins ANY offense, I presume for the 1st speaking team. If your strategy involves winning off presumption, I will only evaluate presumption warrants introduced BEFORE final focus.

The default framework is util. If you want to introduce a different one, do so BEFORE summary. Frameworks should have warrants and, ideally, reasons why your opponents don't link in.

How to Outweigh

Tell me why your impact (or the link to the impact) is more important than your opponent’s via comparative analysis.

If there are multiple competing weighing mechanisms, you should metaweigh. Otherwise, I default prereq > mag > prob.

Probability weighing is NOT an excuse to read new defense. I evaluate probability in terms of strength of link (i.e. the less mitigated the link, the more probable it is).

If there are multiple pieces of offense but no weighing, I'll intervene for what I feel is the highest magnitude.

No new weighing in 2nd Final Focus.

How to Win Terminal Defense

Briefly explain the defense, explain why your opponents failed to respond, AND implicate why that defense is actually terminal.

Even if your defense isn't terminal, you should still extend it if you're going for probability weighing!

Progressive Debate

I will evaluate all forms of progressive debate unless it's something egregiously abusive and anti-educational (tricks). But, all things being equal, I still prefer evaluating traditional debates.

Theory MUST be in shell format and introduced immediately after the violation for me to evaluate it. Defaults are spirit > text, reasonability > CIs, DTA > DTD, education > fairness, and no RVIs.

Personally, I think everything besides disclosure and paraphrasing theory is frivolous, but I'll try my best to keep an open mind if you're running something different.

I have very elementary experience with kritiks. I will try my best, in good faith, to evaluate your arguments, but you are responsible for making them clear to me. Slow down and explain the literature using as little academic jargon as possible, and I will be receptive.

If you're looking for free, high-quality debate content, subscribe to Proteus Debate Academy

• My pronouns are he/they. I’ve been doing speech and debate for about a decade and coaching/judging for about half that time. I’m very familiar with Parli and World Schools, not so much with Policy, LD, or BQ so if you’re using event-specific shorthand from one of those, please clarify.
• I was a a back-to-back California State Champion in my first 2 years of speech and debate in Original Prose/Poetry so it’s safe to say I value creativity and originality. Particularly if you’re dealing with a metaphysical/nonspecific/personal resolution, I want you to think outside the box. Why make a topic like “Resolved: it’s not easy being green” just another Policy debate?
• I recognize that delivery isn’t as heavily prioritized in debate as it is in IE. However, if it feels like you’re reading off a screen or your tone is flat all the way through, you’re losing speaker points and perhaps even the round.
• I tend to value tech > truth within reason. I won’t grant you a win for demonstrably false information just because the other team concedes, but structure matters a great deal. If your links are disorganized and your contentions aren’t thoughtfully signposted, you’re less likely to get my ballot.
• COME UP WITH A FRAMEWORK! Imagine I’ve never heard this debate before in my life (if you do your job, it’ll feel like I haven’t). Tell me what I should be weighing this debate on ASAP. If the other team corners you on your own framework, I don’t mind you pivoting. Just be very clear that you’re setting a new standard.
• Quality > quantity when bringing up advantages and facts/stats. I’m much more likely to give a win to one really thoughtful argument than a bunch of extraneous others. If you’re citing specific evidence, a source is always appreciated but don’t waste too much time spouting research at me. I want you to link it back to your arguments quickly.
• Similarly, I want you to address your opponent’s arguments before adding new ones of your own. Debate is not about who can find better facts, but about how can meaningfully engage with their opponent.
• I don’t believe all resolutions are created equal so I love a good theory argument to even the playing field. Just make sure your shell is well-organized and you walk me through it step-by-step.
• I can flow comfortably, but don’t assume I’ll catch every minute detail. If you want me to take note of a particular point, slow down and emphasize.
• I have no problem with you running K. I just want it to be topical. If your links feel flimsy or like you’re copy/pasting for every resolution, I’m less likely to take it seriously.
• I’m a firm believer in debate being accessible so a spectator with no debate experience should be able to easily follow what you’re saying.
• Lastly, make sure you’re impacting. I'll always prioritize which your side more demonstrably benefits humanity and the people most in need. I don’t care about finance, technology, or any other abstract benefit if you can’t tie it back to how it helps ordinary, vulnerable people live better, safer, more fulfilling lives.
• If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to reach out. My email is finnkoblercontact@gmail.com.

Hey my name is Anita Kohli and I am a parent judge.

A few things you should know about me. I am a new parent judge for Public Forum and am not a professional judge with years of experience. Hence, try to speak slowly and explain your case to me in a way that someone new could understand. Second, I have no preferences for how you choose to share information, all I request is that it is kept professional. If you would like to use the in-meeting chat, that is alright, or I have heard that email chains also work well. Third, I would prefer if you guys are able to coordinate within the meetings yourself. It is not standard practice for a judge to interrupt during a debate, and would prefer if you keep track of your own times/speeches.

Aside from that, best of luck to all teams and I wish for you to succeed.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly, thoughtfully and respectfully to your opponents.

I will vote based on whoever has the better arguments that "stand" at the end of the round.

Any sort of Discriminatory or hateful content will automatically result in a loss for that team. Please be respectful!

Good Luck!

Experience:

Hello everyone! I've competed in speech and debate for 5 years doing a mix of congress, extemporaneous speaking, OO, HI, etc. My main event in high school was Public Forum on the local Arizona circuit and national circuit.

Also, I have done no research on the topic. Please ask me any questions you have before round, I promise I'm nice. :)

General:

I am a typical flow judge. Tech over truth and line-by-line, but warranting is important. I vote for contested but well-warranted, well-explained arguments over shallow, blippy extensions of dropped arguments every time. If you are a 'fast,' 'technical' debater and do not make any comprehensive arguments, you will have to adapt to pick up my ballot.

If you have any questions, or using an email chain add me, sedonakorzay@gwu.edu

Speed:

- the faster you speak, the higher chance I will miss something

- I and your opponents can say "speed" at any time and you should slow down, if you don't your speaker points will reflect that

Structure:

- Second rebuttal must answer turns made in first rebuttal; I prefer that second rebuttal answers defense.

- Arguments that you want me to evaluate should be extended with a warrant and impact in summary and final focus.

- Don't extend through ink.

- Please roadmap/signpost.

- Collapse; if you don't, you might not like how I vote

- Don't abuse and overview

Weighing:

- do NOT make me do your dirty work, I will not appreciate it...

- Must be warranted. Give me reasons why to prefer your mechanisms; this is done best when comparative and specific to opponent's offense.

- don't just throw words out (ie. scope, magnitude) EXPLAIN why I should be preferring you

Speaker Points:

- I will only give you lower than 25 speaks if you do something TERRIBLE

- I do take the way you speak and hold yourself into account for speaks

Notes on Progressive Arguments:

- If you run a Plan, Counterplan, Kritik, or most Theory, you're lowering your chance of me voting for you. PF is supposed to be accessible.

- Theory: If your opponent introduces significantly abusive arguments/tactics, I will evaluate traditional or simple fairness arguments made using simple formats and weighing mechanisms. No to speaker point and disclosure theory.

Misc.

• I will intervene, stop the round, and tank your speaks if something egregious or offensive occurs (ad hominem, racism, ablism, Islamaphobia, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.). Your coach will also get an unpleasant email. (one very important reason for this is because I have experienced it in rounds and the judges did nothing about it until the round is over.)

- Have fun!

I like people debating with solid/strong points supported by the evidence. I would like to see people with passion in their debate, but does not encourage bullying other teams. I look for people making clear/concise statements with clear articulation. I try to be diligent in tracking/flow of contentions and arguments.

All the best!

I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.

I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.

Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!

I'm a former policy debater, with a few years experience judging PF. I expect all competitors to be respectful and professional and to adhere to the structure and standards of debate.

For GBX '24: The tournament requires that we use the Tabroom doc share. DO NOT set up an email chain, follow tournament rules, please.

Also per the tournament invitation, "Each round’s decision time deadline is based on the Tabroom pairing start time. If the judge does not enter a decision in tabroom by the decision time, it is within the Tabroom’s power to flip a coin to determine the winner of that debate." DON'T BE LATE, the tournament does intend to enforce this.

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

I am a parent judge with little judging experience for youth tournaments. I vote based on the strength of both your argument and speech delivery. It is important that you speak clearly and slowly and present a persuasive, coherent argument. Please devote your time in the round explaining ideas clearly and responding directly to your opponents' arguments.

Please say your name, topic and pro or con. Please send your evidence and speech doc to ajaynigam@gmail.com

Hello Debaters,

I evaluate winners based on :

• clarity / clear arguments
• believable claims
• strong rebuttals
• clean extensions

TLDR:

Add me to the chain and send docs: aditya.kurra@stern.nyu.edu

You'd prob classify me as a flay judge.

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

Collapse well, extend clearly, weigh, win.

Please skip grand if u don't actually have questions

UPDATE YALE: Set up email chain before round and you should be ready to start immediately at the posted round time. I will deduct speaks by .3 for every minute you are late.

General:

I debated PF 4 years at Flower Mound

qualled for toc x2

LD/PF:

LARP: Weigh and meta weigh

Phil/ Framing: I default util but feel free to run something else if u want. I'm familiar with kant, struc vio, and sentimentalism. If ur reading something else thats not intuitive slow down a bit and overexplain.

T/Theory: Went for this a lot, its pretty fun to judge. I default competing interps, yes rvis, drop the debater, normsetting > In round abuse. Chill with friv theory. I generally think disclosure/round reports is true and paraphrasing bad but I def wont hack for them.

Ks: I never rlly ran these args but I've hit them—T framework is a godsend. If u run them i'm almost assuredly not familiar with your lit. Err on the side of overexplaining it to me like I'm a 5 year old. Not a fan of alts that do essentially nothing. Complex K debates are where I trust myself the least in making the right decision.

Tricks: Feel free to run. Idk why this needs to be said but if ur just gonna dump a bunch a paradoxes u need to read truth testing. I rlly like eval after, indexicals, and theory tricks.

Presumption: If there's no offense at end of round, I default presumption goes to the team that lost the flip.

Feel free to post round me.

If you have any questions ask me before the round.

Speaker Points: I give some pretty mid speaks based on strategic decisions you make so don't go for everything.

I'll usually start around 28.5 and go up or down from there.

Hello, My name is Autumn Kutsick. I am a senior at Northern Arizona University. I competed on the university's team in the past in Parli, IPDA, Extemporaneous, Impromptu, and Oxford.

Questions on my paradigm or your ballots email: aj.kutsick@gmail.com

You may use the same email to include me in the evidence chain.

General:

1. Don't be a jerk, when it all ends debate is fun and you and your opponent should both learn something.
2. Please weigh your rounds and your impacts, I don't want to do it for you, it's your job to tell me why something is important and why you deserve the vote.
3. Definitions are important, if you are going to claim abuse on a definition tell me why and where it comes from. Don't just add on to definitions.
4. A plan that lacks solvency is not a plan, you must be able to show your plan will actually accomplish something.
5. Impact Calc is important!! If you want my ballot tell me why you deserve it!
6. Do not weigh impacts in an icky way, especially pfers. I will take you down on ethos if you make an argument that clearly ignores important values.
7. Dropped points are very important, especially if your opponent points it out.
8. Do not lie to me, or manipulate source material. I will not use outside information but if you outright lie I will drop the entire point and your speaks. This goes for purposefully misinterpreting and misconstruing cards as well.
9. Don't put words in your opponent's mouth, especially in the last speech. Listen and do not manipulate, using what they say against their case is fine but don't manipulate them to serve your purposes.
10. Speak clearly, I dislike spreading because I don't want to hear 3 pages of evidence I want to hear the logical conclusions you came to from your evidence. You must make arguments not just use your evidence as your argument. This is a sport that requires critical thinking and I want you to show me where you did that thinking.
11. Link your arguments, I don't need you to hold my hand through your case but I do need to see where you draw connections.
12. Currency and uniqueness are important, if your opponent has older evidence that is less important than newer evidence for the issue at hand point it out. Same with unique impacts, while all impacts are important social media isn't the only cause of body image problems, etc.
13. As being someone who did college parli I understand tech and am not lay, however, if you are going to run an out-of-the-box k it better be clear how everything links together.

Speeches:

1. Signpost, I need to be able to follow you for it to make it onto my flow.
2. Stay away from Ad Homonym attacks, these have no place in the education of any round. You and your opponent are both intelligent, show me that by clashing with their case not their personality.

Cross:

1. Yes, it is binding but less important if it isn't mentioned in the speech.
2. Don't be rude. Again this may be heated but no personal attacks.
3. Make sure there is actually a question, don't drone on where it is unclear to both your opponent and I what you are asking.
4. Statements made by those who are supposed to be asking a question will not be considered.
5. If you are going to cut your opponent off do it respectfully at a natural breaking point.

Counterplans (For Policy):

1. Must prove why they are better with less detrimental impacts. Please don't propose a counterplan without solvency.
2. With a counterplan it should still solve the problem completely. IE.) Don't give me a counterplan for the terrible treatment of prisoners in workplaces saying you are going to pay them minimum wage, this leaves out safety, training, etc.

Voters:

1. I vote on well-linked arguments if your plan solves everything but is poorly linked then the status quo outweighs.
2. Show me how your case is better, and what is more important.
3. Make sure the round weight comes back up at the end.
4. Tell me why I'm voting for you and show the impacts if I don't. Please don't make me do the dirty work.

I will disclose and give a verbal RFD if you stick around. Don't be afraid to ask questions and most of all have fun :)!

flow judge

didn’t read theory much but i’ll evaluate it

near 0 K experience so read if u rly want

typically do not feel like flowing off a doc, but it depends on the day

be nice

I judge based off :

• whoever stays respectful
• whoever can speak with clarity
• who can defend their argument
• whoever is backed by evidence

Good Luck Debaters !!

Hello,

This is my 2nd year judging PF. Please speak legibly and maintain the logical order of the arguments. You will see me focused on taking notes over the course of debate.

Diversity in arguments supporting your case along with any available quantification is perceived positively as it reflects the amount of research and preparedness. Out of the box and/or quick analytical thinking aiding your case is always welcome!

It is important to me that the teams respect each other and maintain the decorum of debate.

Wish you the Best and have fun!

Parent judge with some experience

I will take notes

Don't spread, you will lose me

Extend all your arguments

If its in cross but not in a speech, I won't vote on it

Weigh your impacts

Please avoid technical arguments

If there is an email chain add me: srivatsan.laxman@gmail.com

A grad of James Logan HS, I competed in various platform speaking events, Impromptu, along with LD and Congressional debates.

Events judged:

Expos/Informative, OO, OA, Extemp, Imp, (interps:) OPP, DI, HI, OI, DUO

LD, Parli, Congress, Pu Fo

Least experienced with Policy

I am unfamiliar with theory...weigh impacts.

Judge History:

GGSA IEs, Debate, MLK, Palm Classic, Stanford

Hi,

I will mainly look at the consistency in argumentation for both teams, and I prefer strong reasoning with concrete examples. Please speak slowly and clearly so that I can understand. I do not have much knowledge about this topic, so please try to make my job easier by going over the topic.

I am a history professor and a parent judge.

Good luck to all!

Hello,

I was a debater in high school. My last PF round as a debater was in 2016, so I'm not highly familiar with current norms. I also have limited topic knowledge and, therefore, will anticipate a fair degree of uncertainty regarding the specifics of the topic. I will evaluate each speaker with a technical standard and render a decision based on the overall quality of the arguments presented and the persuasiveness of their positions. Please ensure that your arguments are directly related to the resolution.

email: sammiee0920@gmail.com

I did policy debate for 3 years at Downtown Magnets High School (shoutout to LAMDL) and did a year of speech in college.

* If there will be an email chain, include me at the top of the round pls (email above);
* I won’t track time unless requested, and flashing evidence is not considered prep time but don’t take too long;
* I’m comfortable with speed but I am not responsible for missing something you consider important if you made the decision to spread through it — emphasize your winning args;
* Be confident, considerate, and have fun - that will leave the best impression and give you the best speaker points!

I debated policy from 2018-2023 on mostly national circuit, but have debated PF in the past.

If you want to add me to email chains, use this email:saevin04@gmail.com

tldr: vote off my flow

Teams are expected to time themselves and when the timer goes off, I stop flowing.

LBL: Clash is good and love line by line, try to keep the debate organized. Appreciate impact calc and judge direction. I listen to cross-x and cx is binding. Please flow and be careful with throwing around the other team dropped an argument when they didn't, it will cost you speaker points.

TECH > Truth: Much more lenient on this in PF, just explain your arguments and give me an explanation on how the round should be weighed and why if it does become tech vs truth. Don't just extend taglines but actual warrants and cutting evidence out of context has been an issue, don't do that.

Speed: fine with me, but be sure it's clear. If I didn't catch an argument in a speech, then I won't vote on it.

K's: Most teams in PF aren't deploying or using these correctly, would appreciate seeing one pulled off. However, I was mostly a FW debater in policy. I also think that PF shouldn't be diet-policy, teams shouldn't just be reading their policy teams' files (this applies for all arguements).

Theory/Framework: I am used to the way this is run in policy and largely unfamiliar with what it looks like in PF. All theory PF debates I have seen are messy without clear violations/harms.

Courtesy: PLEASE be nice to the other team, your partner, and the judge, any racist/homophobic/sexist/ableist comments will not be tolerated and will result in auto 25 speaks.

CARD format update:

Ive been involved in CARD debate for 2 years now coaching at the University of Oregon. Over these 2 years, my vision for CARD has evolved and the below is a general provision about how I judge a CARD debate. These are general provisions meaning that some of these will be dictated by the debaters themselves. Provisions that are not negotiable (not dictated by the actions of the debaters) will be in bold.

Generally, I will default to a paradigm that evaluates whether the affirmative has met their burden of proof meaning that the affirmative has presented a topical plan that has sufficiently met its stock issues (inherency, harms, solvency) and is comparatively advantageous to the status quo. The negative has the burden of rejoinder meaning that the negative has to refute that the affirmative has met their burden of proof. The negative can do so by presenting disadvantages to the plan, a counterplan, a kritik with an alternative, and/or disprove the affirmative has met its stock issues.

This means that I will not evaluate the debate in a purely "offense/defense" paradigm. What this means for you is that while it is important to win that your impact outweighs, I generally care more about whether you have met your respective burden. Arguments about impact prioritization are welcomed and encouraged but are not the end all be all of the debate. There is a chance that you may win that your impact outweighs but the other team has disproven something important about your advocacy that overcomes the impact framing arguments.

Specific arguments:

Topicality: I will evaluate topicality as a narrow question of fact. Meaning that the affirmative if either topical or not and is not a question of interpretation. This also applies to issues of extra and effects topicality. If the affirmative is extra or effects topical and the negative makes the argument, I will not evaluate the extra/effects parts of the plan text and will view them as a solvency deficit to the plan.

Framework: The traditional line of framework argumentation (e.g. fiat is illusory, role of the judge/ballot, dont weigh the aff) is not acceptable. If you want to make framing arguments about if I should prioritize a specific criteria for evaluating impacts (e.g. utilitarianism) then you may make those arguments as long as the framing devices are not procedurally excluding the opposing teams argument.

Theory: Generally not allowed, however, I will follow what the card norms dictate. A theory argument must be a sustained line of advocacy throughout the debate. It must be initiated by each team in the speech immediately after the objectionable argument occurred. It will be treated as a narrow question of fact. the argument must be specifically tailored to the objectionable argument (e.g. x counterplan is unfair instead of y class of counterplan is unfair). for it to be a votable argument, it must be connected to the opposing teams failure to meet their burden of proof or rejoinder.

Condo/Fiat:Fiat is limited and reciprocal. Fiat is also durable regarding the implementation of the plan/counterplan. Advocacies introduced by the affirmative and negative must not be intentionally contradictory. Debaters may not "kick" advocacies introduced in the debate, but the negative may indicate that if they do not win the counterplan/kritik that there are other reasons the affirmative has not met their burden of proof.

NDT/CEDA paradigm:

Background
I debated at Kapaun Mt. Carmel Catholic High School in Wichita, KS for 4 years, one year at Weber State and 3 years at Kansas State University. I have been coaching for Oregon this year doing CARD debate. I do not have many rounds in policy this year but have a decent amount of familiarity with the topic. However, I have been out of policy since 2019 so my knowledge of what has changed since then is limited. I am a current law student so most of my time is spent on policy making these days but I do still have all my old K knowledge buried somewhere in my mind. Just don't assume I know all of the new ev that's come out since 2019.

*ONLINE DEBATE* I did zero coaching or judging online during covid so I am just now getting use to it. I have hearing issues so speed can be difficult for me to follow online sometimes so please slow down. I do still flow on paper so please give me pen time.

General Comments

I default to an offense/defense paradigm if I am not given another framework for the debate
I do ask that you add me to the email chain. leybasam@gmail.com


T/Theory/FW

Topicality - robust T debates are some of my favorite debates to judge.

Framework - Ive come around a bit on the framework debate and find myself more willing to vote on it than I did when I was competing. I think the best framework arguments are centered around policy education. I will vote on fairness but have a pretty high threshold for it.

Theory - love it. dont be blippy.

DA

Do your thing but be specific. Please tell a compelling link and impact story.

CP

I don't have any biases against specific CP's. Smart but abusive counterpleas are fun but be careful because my threshold for it losing to a theory arg is lower. Just be able to defend the theory behind said counterplan.

K

Most (if not all) of my college debate experience was in debating the K against a variety of arguments. These are the debates that I found myself enjoying the most in college, however, I really do love a good policy debate these days. I have not kept up on what has come out in the lit since spring 2019 so if you have some new hot fire to read, please make sure to explain it a bit more since my conceptualization of things like set col and afropess might be stuck in the old days.

I am a parent judge without formal debate training. I will listen attentively to both sides with as little personal bias as possible and take notes. I will attend only to the arguments presented in the debate when making my decision. Please keep your rate of delivery conversational and avoid jargon. Arguments should be clearly extended from speech to speech, with the last speech telling me what a ballot for your side looks like and why that is a better option than a ballot for your opponent. Be kind and respectful to everyone in the room.

Lay parent judge

This will be my first time judging a debate round.

Make all ideas very clear, and no debate jargon please.

I will not be flowing but I will take notes down. If you speak too fast and I cannot write what you have to say down, I cannot evaluate it.

Please weigh.

Hi there, I am a parent judge. Please speak clearly and slowly. Please add me to your email chain.

when they say you need to judge

hi! i debated for plano west. i use they/them pronouns. add me to the email chain: rhl53@georgetown.edu

tl;dr

• my priority #1 is a safe debate space. read trigger/content warnings with proper opt-outs when applicable, respect people’s pronouns, and generally don't act exclusionary/___ist or you will be given an L and 20s

• watching people debate off speech docs makes me sad.

• extend the entire argument (uniqueness through impact) and collapse please. otherwise, your speaks will be a bit concerning

• warrants > evidence; i won't call for cards unless you tell me to, or if a lack of warrant comparison requires me to

the rest

• email chain ≥ google doc >>> zoom/nsda campus chat. pf evidence ethics...

• "new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such" —aj yi

• unanswered defense is sticky in first summary; the only frontlining i require in second rebuttal is turns/offense

• i like progressive arguments, as long as they are run in a way that's accessible to everyone in the round. if you read tricks or friv when your opponents didn't agree to a tricks/friv round, you are cringe and my threshold for what counts as a good response will be very very low

• i don't mind speed, but if i have to flow off a speech doc, you're going too fast. (if i have to clear you more than 2-3 times, i'm deducting speaks) that being said, send your speech docs anyway

• random specific icks: dumping/doc botting and then either looking confused mid-speech when reading through some of the responses on your doc or using completely irrelevant responses, calling for a gajillion cards and then not making them relevant in any speech, probability weighing, impact weighing the same impact scenario read on both sides, being called judge (just call me renee)

• i don't have a presumption preference. if the round goes off the rails, tell me why i presume for you or else i may or may not flip a coin

• click here to boost your speaks; click here and here for instant serotonin

feel free to ask questions! i’m fine with postrounding

if you ever need someone to talk to or have anything else you want to ask, my facebook messenger and instagram (@reneelix) dms are always open

glhf!

I am a lay judge whose kid does public forum. 

I have judged some rounds off tabroom of middle school and high school level rounds. 

Please speak slowly and present your points in an organized way. 

Do not be rude to your opponents.

My vote belongs to the speaker who builds a bridge of logic and reasoning, leading me across it to their point of view. Show me the data, paint a vivid picture, and leave me convinced that your vision is the one worth pursuing.

I am lay judge. my vote goes to the speaker who can melt my defenses like butter on a hot pan. But if you're spitting out words like popcorn kernels in a microwave, I'll be reaching for the extinguisher, not the ballot :)

Before speaking, please send me your case evidence and rebuttal speech to reduce time needed for evidence exchange during the round: R40135@gmail.com

Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a freshman at UMass Amherst.

Tech > Truth

Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.

Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory

I'll only intervene on two occasions

1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur

2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater

Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run

Speaks

I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.

Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though

Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you

If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.

Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".

Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens

Summary

You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo

First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff

Final Focus

New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff

CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention

Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.

Progressive

Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.

My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.

CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.

K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.

K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc

Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.

Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah

T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.

Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.

Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round

Hello! I'm a professor so I routinely evaluate defenses, debates, and discussions, however, I have never been a NSDA debater and am a lay judge.

In a round, I mainly look for strong and logical argumentation, clear evidence to support your contentions, general eloquence (no spreading please), and decorum (especially during crossfire).

No progressive argumentation like theory, ks, tricks, etc. You will be dropped.

I can't wait to hear all of your arguments. Have fun!

I am a parent judge. Please speak at normal speed. However, try not to use highly embellished rhetoric. It backfires.

• First of all, respect your opponents and your teammate.
• My decision is based solely on the debate process itself.
• Value well constructed arguments with concrete evidence.
• Proper weighing wins more point. Convincing arguments on highly impactful issues is critical.
• No spreading. Debate is a process to reveal a balanced view of the world rather than a simple game.
• Improper use of fallacy templates loses points.
• email: fushanliu@hotmail.com

Some background:

I did PF throughout high school and parliamentary debate (APDA) at the University of Maryland. I've coached students in PF, Parli, LD, and Policy and I've judged all debate formats, though I'm most up to date with PF.

Some general things:

1. Don't be rude.

2. Rounds are evaluated based on argumentation. Speaks are evaluated based on contribution to the ballot.

3. I can handle speed as long as you remain coherent. I will never intentionally penalize you for spreading but you take on an increasing risk that I miss something on the flow the faster you speak. Send me a speech doc if you want to be safe: thnliu288@gmail.com

4. I will stop flowing when time is up (yes, you can finish your sentence). Keep track of each other's prep time.

5. I don't flow cross but will pay attention. For me, cross often helps clarify things (remember, I'm not an expert in the topic you're debating). If there's something from cross you'd like me to evaluate in my decision, bring it up in your speech.

Some notes on debate and flow

1. Please signpost and road-map. Telling me where you are on the flow will ensure that I am also there.

2. Tech > truth. The further from "truth" your argument strays though, the lower the threshold I have for what qualifies as a response. For instance, "no they can't" is an acceptable response to "elephants can fly".

3. I (tend to) only evaluate arguments made in the speech where they belong. Constructive arguments belong in the opening speech. Responses should be made in the first speech they can be made in (generally the subsequent speech). New arguments don't belong in the final speech.

4. Extend (and frontline) the offense you want me to flow through. If you forget to extend it, I'll probably forget to vote on it. Blippy extensions are fine in principle, but often insufficient for a ballot in practice. The more you think I should prioritize an argument, the more speech time you should allocate to it.

5. I will only call cards if you explicitly ask me to and they matter for my decision. Hint: they almost never do.

6. Tell me how to weigh arguments or I will weigh them myself. I'm bad at weighing.

Specific argument preferences/biases

1. I am receptive to pretty much any type of argument, so long as you tell me how I should evaluate it.

2. Progressive arguments (Ks, theory) are cool. However, I offer no guarantee to keep up to date with the latest acronyms or terminology, so err on the side of explaining things more thoroughly.

a. Be very explicit when telling me how to evaluate the argument. This is especially true for anything pre-fiat - if you don't tell me what I should do (and warrant why), I'll probably do something you didn't want me to.

b. I prefer "drop the argument" to "drop the debater". I'll consider whatever you run, but I'm more inclined to buy the former.

c. Used to be categorically against RVIs, have come around somewhat. I'm down to vote on them, but it's context dependent.

d. Still very against tricks, very receptive to theory on tricks bad. If I have to vote on them, you are almost certainly getting a low speak win.

3. Tabula rasa is fake. Debate involves a common pool of knowledge assumed to be true unless challenged. If challenged, it becomes another argument to be evaluated in the round. For transparency, my "default settings" are: policymaker role of the ballot, debates should be fair and educational, the world exists, science is correct, the earth is flat, words have meanings, consequences matter, equality good, rationality real, people have free will. Feel free to make arguments challenging these assumptions, but keep in mind that you incur the burden of proof.

4. Feel free to ask questions before the round. I don't claim to be perfectly unbiased, but I am very willing to clarify any pre-existing beliefs I may be bringing into the round.

5. My gut is not your gut. If you ask me to gut check something or rely on my intuitions, I'll do that but you may not like the outcome. The safe thing to do is just make warranted arguments.

6. If you say "baba yetu" in your speech, I'll sky your speaks.

I am Parent lay judge. Speak at any pace you want, as long as it is understandable. Debate using lots of historical empirics and statistics backing your claims.

Add this email to the chain: VCHSdebate@gmail.com

i wont read any cards sent during the round. Only after

I evaluate all arguments, as long as they are logical

I prefer debaters presenting, reinforcing their arguments and rebutting their opponents’ arguments with solid logic and reasoning as well as authorized evidences.

I value respectful and strong discourse in crossfire, but not rude or overpowering. I don’t like spreading.

Thanks and good luck,

Lanyun Liu

I am a parent and lay judge with no real experience. Please be clear with your arguments. Read them in a comprehensible manner. If you read them too fast I won't be able to flow properly. Try not to use to use extremely technical terms. If you do please explain them. Finally, be respectful to your opponents and have fun.

This is my fifth time judging public forum. I have a daughter that participates in public forum so I am familiar with the debate process.

I'm ok with speed, but no spreading

I value content and logical arguments, but good speaking quality is also important

I have been judging LD and PF debates for about 6 years. I do flow cases so it will be great if you could provide me with an off-time roadmap and signpost your arguments. I judge based on tech>truth.

It is important to have a clear framework, so make sure that you state that this is contention 1, subpoint 1 etc. Please extend your arguments and make sure that you have cards for your evidence since I do read them. I like clash so you have to defend your contentions during cross examination.

Please be respectful to your opponent during cross examination. Do let your opponent finish their question or sentence. I will sign my ballot the second that I hear any discriminatory language.

Have fun, do your best and good luck!

I am a parent judge. I judge off of the flow. No spreading and don't use a lot of jargon. Weighing and framework is important for me. I will give higher speaker points for debaters who maintain professionalism and are calm and respectful.

Judge Experience: two years of speech, one year of debate.

Philosophy: no against any philosophical view

Speak: clear and fluent, not just speed. Prefer to have some rhythm.

Argument: no bias, have patience to listen all argument evidences, opinions in crossfire, prefer to the message delivered by line-to-line.

Over all, I am a flexible judge to take notes on key points at each section. The winner will be based on the weights of all section performance.

I use she/her pronouns

Background on who I am. I did mainly Public Forum and Congress at Cherry Creek High School in Colorado and went to Nationals and State multiple times for PF. I currently do Parliamentary Debate(NPDA) at Whitman College, an impromptu policy debate (imagine CX but we get the topic pre-round and only have 25 minutes to prep for those who don't know) and have placed nationally multiple times.

I will vote down teams that run any arguments that are blatantly bigoted or drop a slur.

For PFers:

Do whatever you want within reason. Off time roadmaps good with me. I'm a flow judge. 15 second grace period. Debates a game I'll treat as such, run whatever you want. I love weird cases. Ive run all sorts weird things and am happy to hear whatever as long as you can back it up and youre topical. Id like to think I'm pretty fair, I will listen to arguments that are more shakey on a logic level if they are carded and well defended. Please collapse in the FF dont throw the round bc your FF refused to give me clear voters. I lean tech over truth

If you are running Ks look to CX. I think Ks shouldn't be run in PF and likely wouldn't vote on them but if you have a project send it anyway I wont auto vote down, just a really really high threshold. Maybe the norms have radically changed since I left and Ks are all over if that's the case I'm probably more likely to hear them if I keep hearing like Deep Eco nonstop and that just seems accepted as ok.

For LDers:

LD is the debate I have the least exposure. However I have been judging lots of LD rounds and still think I'm a fair and good judge. I also just love philosophy. If youre collapsing to Criterion or CV tell me why I should care I think one of the biggest mistakes around CV/Crit debates is just telling me you won it but dont telling me why I should vote on it. 15 second grace period. I love listening to weird cases as well and have read a lot of philosophy lit, but am also cool if you treat it more like a policy/PF round and go harder for the impacts. Pretty much just do what you want within reason.For LD debates that want to treat LD more like a policy round look to Policy below for most of my opinions on that.

For CXers/Policy:

Rankings of args in my preference of seeing them

1 Neg K

2 PTX

3 Aff K

4 Clever T

5 other policy cases

6 Normal T

7 PICs

-25 garbage late round T

The majority of my Policy experience has been in college that being said I've heard lots of cases, Ks, Theory, etc. Dont spread but high speed is fine just don't do spreading proper, I cant handle it I don't want it. I also think on an ethical level extreme spreading is unethical and ableist. Make it clear when you kick things. I can understand most jargon you can go tech heavy if you want. I lean tech over truth. I think the most fair way to evaluate rounds is on the flow. Im a sucker for solvency and uniqueness args.

TLDR on CX:

Good with almost everything. I love Ks the most. Feel free to run wild arguments. Ill vote on nearly anything.

On Policy based Cases (Plans, Ads, DAs, CPs)

Signpost well. Make sure to do good impact calc and collapse clearly. Idk ask me before round about specifics here. I am okay with PICs but think that PICs are abusive you open yourself up to T ground if you do run one. If you're running a PIC I want a clear DA attached with solid competition claims layered somewhere. I love PTX DAs, clout tradeoff, scheduling delays, anything big fan of PTX. DAs don't need CPs. I think where policy cases fail is the connection between the links and the out there impacts like nuke war that teams go for. If you're going for these types of args just spend more time on brink scenarios and how the case triggers. While I lean K over Policy I feel plenty comfortable voting on policy.

On Ks

There is one exception to my paradigm on Ks. I wont vote up a team that runs a K based on an author who directly participated in a genocide. Basically dont run Mao or Stalin(you can think of more examples that arent marxist I'm sure), there are plenty of really good non-genocidal communist lit for debate.

I am a bit of a K hack (okay more than a bit) I love Ks. No matter what it is extremely hard to vote on a K I do not understand. This doesn't mean don't run something new or weird, just that it needs to be well explained. please run your new whacky K that you dont think anyone will listen to, I will. I have run/heard/know about every "standard" K I hope people would be willing to run and a lot more that arent standard. I run weird Ks with lit bases no ones heard of so I can handle some K that I've never heard of. My lack of knowledge on your lit base pre-round will never be a reason why I vote you down. I also like a "straight cut" K if that's more you're vibe. That being said run whatever you want in terms of a K as long as you can make it make sense and explain it well. If I cant understand what your K does I probably wont vote on it but your K can do "nothing" or have some small like rhetorical rupture; I just need to understand it enough to use my ballot to vote you. I am good with Aff Ks too. I have a marginally higher threshold for Aff Ks but I run them all the time and think they are a constructive part of the debate space. Aff Ks can be abusive contextually well to the res.

On Theory

I like theory. Ive become a bit of a fan of T in rounds. I like T when its right, which doesn't mean you cant run T that isnt just straight topicality (I'm personally a big fan of spec in my rounds). If the aff is topical dont run a T that says the aff should be topical just run something else A-Spec, E-Spec, funding, Fx, idk go wild. Hopefully my point is made dont be afraid to run T no matter how complex the T is as long as the T is probably correct. I know mistakes are made and T is run that is not correct and there will never be a violation. I dont care if you run the T as a time suck either from a strat level just dont run bad T. T can be abusive I don't care if your T shell is just so good that the aff functionally cannot meet. Good T is good T.

I dont default to Apriori over K, but lean that T should come above the K naturally. If you run a K just make clear layer claims. CI is better than reasonability but again not a hardline for me.

For Parli

I would generally say that all my philosophy for Parli is the same as on CX.

The exceptions are:

MG theory. I loathe MG theory and really cant see a world where I vote on it unless its like "neg slurred me and that's bad". I wont vote on Condo unless its ridiculous like 4 Ks that are all conditional.

LOR and PMR should have clear impact calc

I think due to the impromptu nature of Parli you can be much squirellier and more unhinged than in CX. Get crafty.

TL:DR

Do what you want have fun, dont go too fast, signpost, convince me and defend your cases and youll do well :).

I also dont actually expect you to bring cookies but hey i mean ill take free desserts...

mcentyredylan89@gmail.com I went to James River (‘22) and did PF mainly on the local VHSL circuit.

Notes for Newark

- I’m used to pf speed. My decision will be better if you slow down.

- My flow template has space for 6 off and I don’t want to add more.

Pref sheet: I’ll evaluate anything that isn’t exclusionary, but there are some arguments that I’m definitely not as good at evaluating.

Larp- 1 (This is what I’m most comfortable with and judge most often. I prefer judging substance debates where both sides are prepared to do solid comparative analysis.)

T/Theory-2/3 (I like it when you can clearly explain both the in-round implications of the violation and why your model of debate is better.)

K-3 (Generally, I view Ks as disads where the alt is a counterplan. I think you should be able to explain who does the alt, what doing the alt entails in literal terms, and how the alt solves the harms discussed in the K)

Phil-4 (Not that familiar with it other than util and think the in round implications of Phil can be clearer.)

Tricks- Strike

General:

- Try your best and have some fun. Authenticity is far more persuasive than manufactured politeness.

- I flow by ear and try not to intervene. Judge instruction and comparative weighing are the best ways to minimize intervention. Slow down in the back half of the round and make things clear. Do the comparison and tell me why to prefer your arguments. You can read an awesome response, but if you don’t tell me what it means for the round and why/how it factors into my decision then it’s just more words on my flow. After judging for about a year, the teams that do the best in front of me are comparing each part of the argument they collapse on, telling me why theirs is better, and using judge instruction to write the ballot for me.

- I’ll disclose my decision and can disclose speaks if you ask. Postround respectfully if you want. I'm here to learn and improve just as much as y'all are.

Speed/Speaker points:

- Clarity>>>speed. Some speed is fine(~275wpm) but don’t sacrifice all of your clarity to go fast. Slow down on taglines and signpost more than you think you need to..it’s important. I’ll say clear twice before I give up

- I give speaker points based on strategy and clarity and tend to be generous

~~~~~~~~~~~

Let me know if you have any questions/concerns before or after the round. Also, feel free to email me with any of those questions or concerns.

Thank you, Castelo..debate would not be a part of my life if you hadn’t started coaching.

Parent Judge - that tells you a lot.

General Philosophy:

-I value intelligent thought-process. “Winning” a contention is less important than showing well-researched warrants and logical links to key impacts.

-Do you acknowledge the other side’s argument? You will likely debate both sides of today’s topic, so you know there are good contentions on both sides.

-I could tell you my philosophy on speech speed (s-l-o-w d-o-w-n) ; warranting (show off your warrants and explain them) ; theory arguments (save your breath) ; timing (time yourself, 15-sec grace) ; turns (wonderful), ; collapsing for weighing (I like, you don’t have to) ; etc, but that would imply I know what all these terms mean. I’m not here to judge your knowledge of debate rules but to judge your respectful delivery of summaries and weighs.

-Be nice. The most intelligent people in the room are your teammate and your opponents. Not me. So treat them as such if you want to have a chance of winning. Did I mention, be kind.

Even professional judges get their decisions wrong 5-10% of the time. Expect volunteers like me to be more incompetent but friendlier.

Have fun with a fun topic.

Hello everyone,

I am a parent judge, so am new to PF. Please remember to speak clearly and concisely as well as restate your arguments. Start your speeches by introducing your team, your name and your side. Please do not spread or use any theories, K's, or frameworks. I am looking for good discussion and debate so be respectful during cross as well as during the round.

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit PF & Policy, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST EXTEND it in every speech, BEGINNING WITH THE 2ND REBUTTAL. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as UNANSWERED LINK CHAINS AND IMPACTS that you want to extend from your own case. JUST FRONTLINING WITHOUT EXTENDING the link and impact stories MEANS YOU HAVE DROPPED THOSE LINKS AND IMPACTS, and I won't evaluate them at the end of the debate.
2. Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Please send speech docs to the other team and the judge WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will likely earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will likely earn will be 28. This only applies in TOC & Championship-level divisions.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will likely cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your likely floor.
5. Read tags to cards, or I won't flow them.
6. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
7. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
8. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(Sorry for the insane length. This is more an ongoing exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you go.)

1. 2nd Rebuttal & Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in BOTH the 2nd Rebuttal & Summaries. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the 1st rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts in the 2nd Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. If you want to go for C1 in any meaningful way. you not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will not be sufficient. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the 2nd Rebuttal and/or Summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril, especially if you are the team speaking 2nd. Also, if you do properly extend your links and impacts, and your opponents don't, call them out on it. I am very likely to boost your speaks if you do.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Bad Debate Practices

A. Send Speech Docs to the other team and judges with the cut cards you are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and as PF matures as an event, it is far past time for PF to follow suit. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids hunt for cards that they should already have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and/or just paraphrasing without the cut card readily available. To discourage these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives to encourage debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain or by some other similar means in a timely fashion (within the reasonable amount of time it should take to send those cards via your chosen means - usually a couple of minutes or so) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, you can earn speaker points up to 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, it is highly likely that the lowest speaks you earn will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have your cards ready before the round, or can't get them ready in a reasonable amount of time before each relevant speech, don't waste a bunch time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. If speech docs are not a thing you normally do, don't let it get into your head. Just consider me as one of the many judges you'll encounter that isn't prone to hand out high speaks, and then go and debate your best. I'll still vote for whomever wins the arguments, irrespective of speaks. Afterwards, I would then encourage you to consider organizing your cases and blocks for the next important tournament you go in a way that is more conducive to in-round sharing, because it is likely to be the expected norm in those types of tournaments.

Several caveats to this general rule:

1) the obvious allowances for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, or legitimate tech difficulties

2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score,

3) I will only apply these speaker point limitations in qualifier and Championship level varsity divisions - e.g. state, national, or TOC qualifiers & their respective championship tournaments. Developmental divisions (novice, JV, etc) and local-only tournaments have different educational emphases. So while I would still encourage timely sharing of evidence in those divisions, there are more important things for those debaters to focus on and worry about. However, if you are trying to compete for a major championship, you should expect to be held to a higher standard.

4) As referenced above, these artificial speaker point limitations have no impact on my ultimate decision regarding who wins or loses the round (unless one team attempts to turn some of these discouraged practices into a theory argument of some kind). I am happy to give low-point wins if that's how it shakes out, or else to approximate these same incentives in other reasonable ways should the tournament not permit low-point wins. The win/loss based upon the arguments you make in-round will always take priority over arbitrary points.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality.

B. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Please don't do it. As an activity, we can be better than that. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and hopefully will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentivize you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will likely get from me is a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your likely floor. This penalty will apply even if you have the cut cards available at the bottom of the document. That's still card clipping, and is bad. The same relevant caveats from speech docs apply here (minimums don't apply if you're offensive, only applies to higher-level varsity, and it won't impact the W/L).

C. Read Tags

I can't believe I'm having to write this, but READ TAGS to your cards. "Anderson '23 furthers..." or "Jones '20 continues..." without anything els isn't a tag. It is hard enough to flow the super blippy cards that seem to be everywhere in fast rounds these days, but if you don't give me a tag, it makes flowing functionally impossible. Have some respect for the work your judge has to do to get everything down, and give us a tag so that we can both be more accurate in our flow, and also be able to know what to listen for in the cards. Simply put, if you don't give me a tag for a card, I won't flow it. I don't have time to go back to the speech doc and read every card after you read it in an attempt to reconstruct what argument you think it is making so that I can then take a guess at what you want me to write down. That's what a tag is for. That's your job, not mine. If you want to go fast, that's cool. But you have to meet your judge at least part way. Read tags. That's the price you have to pay for spreading.

4. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level link & impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

5. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

5A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

6. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen an increasing number of rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

In general, I tend to start any evaluation of theory arguments through a lens of competing interpretations, as opposed to reasonability. However, I can be moved out of that evaluative framing, given the right well-warranted arguments.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat & Plans – For policy resolutions, while teams cannot utilize a "plan or counterplan,"—defined as a "formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation"—they can "offer generalized, practical solutions (GPS)." If you can figure out what that word soup means, you are a step up on me. The PF wording committee seems hellbent on continuing to give us broadly-worded policy resolutions that cry out for fiating some more specific version of the resolution. I used to be very much in the "Aff must prove their advocacy is the most likely version of the resolution" camp, but I am starting to move away from that position. I'm pretty certain that a 12 plank proposal with hyper-specific identification of agency, enforcement, and funding mechanisms would constitute a "formalized, comprehensive proposal," and thus be verboten as a "plan" under the above quoted NSDA rule. But does a single sentence with a basic description of a particular subset of the resolution meet this same threshold? IDK. I think there is room for interpretation on this. I haven't seen anyone get into the weeds on this as a theory argument, but I'm not sure just saying "plans aren't allowed" cuts it anymore, especially given the direction the topic committee seems to be moving. Does that also arguably leave open similar room on the Neg for some sort of "counter-solution" or an alternative? I honestly don't know. I guess that means I am open to debates on this issue, if people want to try to push the boundaries of what constitutes a "generalized, practical solution." One thing I am certain on, though, is that if you do attempt to offer some sort of plan-esque "GPS," you probably should have a written text somewhere in your case specifically committing to what exactly the solution is your are advocating. Moving target advocacies that can never be pinned down are insanely abusive, so if you are going to go the "GPS" route, the least you can do is be consistent and up front about it. It shouldn't take a CF question to figure out what exactly it is you are advocating.

Multiple conditional advocacies – When teams read multiple advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round (assuming that you also extend the other team's link and impact stories), and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it, or kick out of it properly. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, and if you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am likely not your judge for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle. Debate is a space where we shouldn't be afraid to talk about important and difficult issues, and opt-outs can too easily be abused to gain advantage by teams who don't genuinely have issues with the topics in question. There would need to be extensive use of graphic imagery or something similar for me to be likely to buy a sufficiently large enough violation to justify voting on this kind of argument. Not impossible, but a very high threshold.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it. And that also includes arguments about proper forms of disclosure. Teams that just post massive blocks of unhighlighted, ununderlined text and/or without any tags read to me as acts of passive aggression that are just trying to get out of disclosure arguments while not supporting the benefits that disclosure provides. Also, responses like "our coach doesn't allow us to disclose" or "email us 30 minutes before the round, and this counts as terminal defense against disclosure arguments" are thoroughly unpersuasive in front of me. I'm sorry your coach doesn't support disclosure, but that is a strategic decision they have made that has put their students at a disadvantage in front of judges like me. That's just the way it goes.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure as arguments, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. Ditto for conditionality arguments, arguments on the nature of fiat in PF, or other arguments about intrinsic or severance-based alterations of advocacies mid-round. However, I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just as likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, I will likely shift to the extreme end of reasonability, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

7. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - I used to think that since PF teams don't get to fiat a counterplan, they don't get to fiat an alternative either. But as my ideas on plans vs "generalized, practical solutions (GPS)" evolve, so do my thoughts on alts. I used to think that the only alt a Neg could get was some variant on "reject." But now, I think there is more wiggle room for a traditional alt under that "GPS" language. I think most alt definitely are generalized solutions (sometimes overly generalized to their detriment). The question is, then, are they "practical" enough to meet the "GPS" language in the NSDA rules. Maybe, maybe not. My gut would tell me more often than not, K alts are not practical enough to meet this threshold, but I could certainly be convinced either way in any given round. That being said, I see no rules-based problems with reject or "do nothing" alts, although they usually have some serious problems on the solvency end of things, absent a good ROTB arg. And of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or even irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

8. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

9. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs & Paraphrasing. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

10. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

11. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. Aren't you cool. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...") which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles (focusing mostly on national circuit PF), and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be VERY EASY to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their root cause, “Alt solves the case,” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me (especially on the Aff when teams basically put the resolution), and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov/PMC: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp/LOC: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov/MGC: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Just listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

Hello, I am a parent judge. I value quantifiable impacts. Please be respectful and speak clearly.

Hello,

I am a lay (parent) judge.

Here is a list of my preferences in a debate round:

• Speak at a slow and understandable pace. (No spreading!!)
• Off time Roadmaps are appreciated.
• Do not run Ks or Theories
• In regards to speaks, usually I range from 26-30. A 30 speaker is one who has a clear and charismatic speaking style along with strong analytical thinking skills used appropriately in the round.
• I flow, but remind me of the most important aspects of the debate CLEARLY in EVERY speech.
• Respect towards opponents and judges is a must.
• Please send your case docs with cut cards to umohta@gmail.com.

dont spread lol

but you can talk a bit fast.

Sarah Moradi

Background: I am a parent judge and a do judge national debates and school debates since 2022:

Preferences for debate :

- Make sure there is there clarity on all your points and provide clear taglines for all your contentions,

- I want to know exactly where you’re going with your arguments. Impacts are ultimately what is going make you win the debate in my eyes,

- I want to have clear warrants as to how your impacts will be achieved and why they matter.

3^rd speeches and Final Focus: Tell me exactly why you should win the debate and why your opponents shouldn’t.

Email chain: owenmm@utexas.edu

tech only, no truth.

default TT

I did PF for Flower Mound, and I broke at TOC (2x qual), TFA (2x qual), NSDA (2x qual), and a bunch of natcirc tourneys (if that matters to you, idk).

PF

Skip grand cross and I'll like you (but if you actually have questions to ask please don't skip because of me).

I only give less than 29.9 if you give me a reason to.

Obviously, I will tank if you are disrespectful -- including but not limited to racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. -- just be a good person please.

and I only give 30 if you dedicate the debate to Sid Thandassery before constructive.

for all: quality > quantity — I need good warranting, explanations, implications, etc. It’s much easier to vote on one really good argument than a few bad ones.

Theory (1)

default: DTD, CIs, norm-setting, fairness > edu, no RVIs

but it doesn't matter, make any arguments, I don't hack (unless you disclose full-text, then good luck)

LARP (2)

extend, probably nothing is sticky.

collapse, signpost, be organized

weigh and meta-weigh

Tricks (1-2)

please run tricks in PF.

Phil (2-3)

I read phil and I like it, but don't be too crazy.

K (4)

I have no problem with them, I'm just not familiar with many Ks. Run whatever you want, but if you want me to vote right, I can prolly follow Cap, Set Col, most Pess Ks, and maybe Psycho.

LD

Speaks are based on strategy.

Bonus if you mention Sid Thandassery, any ex-Flower Mound debater, or bring me caffeine.

Basically same arg prefs as PF

Hi, I'm Mallory!

Though I was a four-year Public Forum debater, this is my first time judging PF, so please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final speeches and rebuttals. I tend to give more credence to data and statistics rather than hypotheticals and theories.

My general rules are simple:

• Don’t misrepresent your evidence!
• While debate can be contentious, please respect your opponents; if I see any rudeness, eye rolling, aggression, or scorn, I will lower the speaker points awarded to you.
• While I default to trusting statistics, data, and proven studies, simply pointing to it is not enough; I prefer to see thorough explanation of your argument and its validity.
• Respond to your opponents' arguments instead of ignoring them—I flow and keep track of arguments, so not contesting or responding to a valid argument from the opposition will damage your case.
• If you ask your opponent a question, allow them to answer. Do not take up the entire Cross-Ex with follow-up questions; give your opponents time to ask questions as well.
• No swearing, please.

Good luck!

I have no preferences other than the following: be respectful of your peers and speak clearly.

I am lay judge and I would like people to give me off-time roadmap and sign-post clearly. I also prefer logical and clear arguments over fake sounding squirrelly arguments.

1. Focus only what I hear from each participant in the debate.

2. Speak clearly, slowly with good eye contact instead just reading from notes.

3. I collect notes from entire debate flow and give the points based on individual performance and finally compare both the teams and decide the winner.

Pronouns: He/Him.

Email Chains/Doc: rsiddharthn@gmail.com

PF:

• tech>truth
• 2nd rebuttal needs to frontline else droppedTry collapsing, it helps.
• Extend in summary for FF to talk about it

General:

• Weigh, warrant, and signpost.
• Disputed evidence, I'll call for.
• Run anything but usual caveats of knowing what you're doing if something is squirrelly, blippy, or techy.
• Bigotry - I probably will just drop you.

Ask before round if any qs

Hi everyone,

My name is Namrata Nanda. I’m a lay judge and I’ve been judging both speech and debate for a year or so for DVHS. I’m familiar with the format of PF and its rules. I have also judged speech and Parliamentary Debate, and I have a daughter who does Public Forum. Here’s the basics of what I want to see during a round:

Speaks:

Please do not spread! I cannot stress this enough. I’m taking off speaks for anyone who spreads. Like I said, I’m a lay judge, so the clearer you are, the better ????

Ethics:

Just be respectful to one another. If someone is being racist or sexist, it’s an automatic win for the other team and I’ll will be forced to report.

How to win:

Tech>truth

As mentioned above, be respectful and talk clearly so I can understand. Cover both sides well. I tend to vote off weighing, so make sure it is explained well! If your opponents drop a point or a response, say that in your speech so I can make note of it.

Timing:

I’ll be timing your speeches, but you should also be timing yourselves. I allow for a 15-second grace period, and if you go over that I won’t hesitate to interrupt and cut you off. If your opponent goes over the 15 seconds, you can cut them off as well, I won’t take off speaks.

CX:

I don’t mind if you’re talking over each other, but don’t say anything inappropriate. I don’t flow cross or pay close attention to it, but do what you need to get your point across (I won’t judge based on cross).

Debate terminology:

Again, I’m a lay judge, so I’m not too familiar with debate terminology. If there’s anything you think I won’t understand, feel free to call it out and explain it to me.

FF2:

If we’re in the second final focus and your opponent brings up new evidence, just tell me right after the round and I’ll take it into consideration when I’m writing my RFD.

RFD:

I’m not going to give my RFD immediately after the round ends, I will need time to decide and give feedback.

Lastly, have fun guys! I’m looking forward to judging everyone. Good luck!

About myself and my judging style.

• Judged in speech and debate events for two years.

• Value content over presentation style.

• Value Quality over Quantity. If I don’t understand the content, I can not give you credit for it. Please slow down if you are looking for better scores.

• Expect teams to respect the time limit, play nice and be polite and respectful.

Have more than one year experience in debate judge. As a senior leader in my current organization, I host and present several meetings globally. My goal is deliver right contents to the audience, demonstrate appropriate body language, keep the audience interested by not repeating the contents, have a constant eye contact, modulation of voice, using the right speed and pronunciations to deliver the contents effectively.

During the judging process, I take notes and compare the notes for providing points, my rationale and feedback. I look for passion from the students on the topics they debate. This will show their hard work and how involved in the topics.

I am a lay judge, and have judged once before at a district tournament. My kid does debate so I have a little knowledge, but I am still not very experienced when it comes to technical debate terms. Please explain things clearly and speak slowly. I prefer logical arguments over ones that sound unrealistic or fake.

I am a volunteer. In high school, I was in a debate club. In college, I judged for the regional high school debate league. Even though it was a long time ago, I still currently use a few skills I learned from debate.

Constructive & Rebuttal: Think of me as a blank slate and you tell me what I should find important. Remember to directly connect your arguments with the affirm/negate of the resolution. This includes connecting the logics in your arguments. A=B & B=C, so is A=C? I don't like to have to think on your behalf. While rebutting your opponents' arguments, don't forget to carry your desired cards from Constructive to Rebuttal. I am okay if you introduce partial or exempt ban in your Constructive or Rebuttal. However, your arguments still must flow for partial/exempt ban from beginning to end in all your speeches.

Crossfires: I like Crossfires that show that the speakers understand the details of everyone's arguments. I am a firm believer in sportsmanship. There's a line between confidence and arrogance. You don't need to make someone look dumb so you could look smart. Crossfires are the only times you don't need to carry your own arguments. If your opponent asks for specific cards, please simply give them to your opponent - I know you don’t want to, but your action shows sportsmanship (and, sometimes, your opponent might not have time to thoroughly read, analysis, & counter your cards).

Summary: Summary is a synopsis. Please focus on the key arguments you want me to keep in mind. Carry your desired cards you have from Constructive to Rebuttal to Summary.

General: The teams should tell me how I should think. (It's hard not to have pre-conceived biases. However, to be fair, I like to be a blank slate. Tell me why your reasons are more important.) Back-up your arguments with brief references (incl. publisher & date of publication). Please be slow & clear in your analysis. I do not like speakers who present a few arguments with deep emphasis. I also do not like speakers who present too many arguments with little details. Please figure out your balance based on the resolution and understanding of your competitors. Don't be too serious. Have fun!

How I Decide on Winning Team: After the debate, I will give you my ruling & feedback. For my ruling, I work backwards from your Final Focus to your Rebuttal to your Constructive. Which arguments were you able to carry through? Which opponents' arguments were you able to squash? The winning team is the team that has the most arguments it was able to carry through without its opponents successfully squashing them. After I decide on the winning team, I think through your arguments. To help you in future rounds, I will provide you my feedback on your style & arguments. How could you have squashed your opponent's arguments? What did you do well/not so well? Take my feedback with a grain of salt - judges don't think the same.

How I Decide on Speakers' Scores: I rank the speakers. I then provide the highest point and lowest point based on how well I think the speakers did... which is based on the information I provided above. Lastly, I provide the middle two points based on how well I think those speakers did comparative to the best & worst speakers.

I am the Head Coach at Lakeville North High School and Lakeville South High School in Minnesota. My debaters include multiple state champions as well as TOC and Nationals Qualifiers.

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

I am also a history teacher so know your evidence. This also means the value of education in debate is important to me.

I encourage you to speak at whatever speed allows you to clearly present your case. I do not mind speaking quickly, but spreading is not necessary. I will tell you to clear if you are speaking too quickly. One sure way to lose my vote is to disregard my request to slow down. If I cannot hear/understand what you are saying because you are speaking too quickly, I cannot vote for you.

Claim. Warrant. Impact. I expect you to not only explain the links, but also impact your argument. I am impressed by debaters who can explain why I should care about a few key pieces of important evidence rather than doing a card dump.

If you plan to run off case- that's fine, just make sure that you articulate and sign post it well. Don't use narratives or identity arguments unless you actually care about/identify with the issue. You can run any type of case in front of me but do your best to make it accessible to me and your opponent. Please do not run arguments that are harmful to any identities (anti arguments); debate should be a safe space to exchange ideas and engage in public discourse.

Be respectful of your opponent and your judge. Please take the time to learn your opponent's preferred pronouns. I expect you to take your RFD graciously-the debate is over after the 2AR not after the disclosure.

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

I am a lay judge, and have not debated public forum before.

However, I do understand the format of public forum debate and will be flowing the round. As for speaking, a conversational speed is preferred and the speech should be clear and concise.

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

Here are some things you can do to win my ballot:

• Main Point: I look for a few main arguments that are stuck with throughout the round, and I value quality over quantity when it comes to this speech. Please do not run theory or kritiks as I do not have experience with them and will most likely not vote off of them.

• Rebuttal: Attack your opponent's case as much as possible, and stick to a few clear points. Frontlining is recommended in 2nd rebuttal, but not necessary.
• Summary: Make sure the impact weighing is laid out well in this speech. A neat comparative analysis of the arguments presented is the easiest way to win the round
• FF: New arguments/responses can't be brought up in this round. Make a clear analysis of the round and weigh impacts.

CX:

I will not vote off of CX but it will affect your speaks. Having a good knowledge of your case and the topic will result in higher speaks.

Evidence Sharing:

If any cards are called for, they should be shared ASAP, since this tournament is online I understand if there are delays, but an email chain should be set up before the round starts and if the debate truly comes down to a clash of evidence then I will evaluate the cards as well.

Speaks:

I will give speaker points based on your in depth knowledge of the topic and your ability to speak clearly and to the point during rounds.

Most importantly, debate is all about learning and improving, not winning or losing. At the end of the day I want you to have a good round, and have fun!

Truth > tech

I like stock cases argued and explained well. Cross ex totally matters, in fact I have voted on convincing, strategic CXs in many a bid round. Summaries should weigh. Call it "old tymey” PF.

Strike me if you have a super long link chain, do not address the topic, or talk super fast. Humor is great!

Please speak slowly. I am a lay judge. Don’t assume I know the topic well. Add me to the email chain yasuhiro.ogawa@gmail.com

Hi! I am a first time parent judge with no previous experience judging. I have a background in technology and am interested in many different current event topics. Treat me as an extremely lay judge. Please: no spreading, theory, K's, or anything fast. I look for polite and civil debates in which debaters are well informed and respectful to each other. I will not keep a time check.

Good luck and have fun!

Did PF for 6 years. Competed for Evergreen Valley

email: ppalleti@wharton.upenn.edu

General Preferences:

Tech>Truth

Read any argument

Be Efficient

Read metaweighing in rounds with several weighing mechs

Speed is fine.

Please share speech docs as a standard.

I will default negative for policy rounds, and the first speaking team for fact rounds

I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good.

Crossfire should be about asking questions, DO NOT assert yourself over your opponent to try and impress me

Please ask me questions at the end of the round

I agree with the notion that debate should be played like a game. I enjoy judging rounds where debaters use "unique paths" to the ballot.

I'm a parent lay judge who's judged two tournaments before.

No theory. Expect me to know very little about how debate works, so reduce use of jargon and tech strategies. I also don't know much about the topic, so be sure to explain things thoroughly. Most likely to be truth over tech, so don't try to argue something ridiculous or highly unrealistic. Weighing is very important. I'm new to flowing so SPEAK SLOWLY.

1. State your name, team, and side before speeches.
2. Keep track of your own time.
3. Be respectful to your opponents in the round.
4. Feel free to ask me any clarifying questions. I will be providing written feedback after the round is over.
5. Have fun and enjoy yourselves!

I am a parent judge, with 10 years of experience.

Important:

Please speak clearly, avoid over speed, and explain your points thoroughly.

Online Debate:

For online debates, prefer cameras on and you are fully visible.

Relevant Thoughts:

• Evidence quality is important. Good data and analytics can beat bad cards.
• My experience is policy-heavy, and it ultimately isn't my choice what I hear, but point is I think I've seen, heard, and debated a wide variety of arguments that will help aid in judging so do what you know best.
• You as the competitor should be clear in your thought while asking questions or answering them.
• In rounds just make sure to tell me where you are going in your speech.
• Speed is fine with me in beginning speeches but make sure your speed doesn't affect the quality of the argument.
• Don't hesitate to ask me any questions.

I am a lay judge. Please do not speak too fast, and I judge on quality, not quantity, of arguments. Always link your impacts and do not use any advanced theory (anything beyond disclosure) or advanced ks.

I am a parent judge.

.

PF:

.

What I expect from debaters:

- Don’t use jargon

- Don’t speak too fast

- Don’t be rude in crossfire

- Don’t laugh at your opponents during their speech

- Weigh clearly and comparatively to show me why I should vote for you

.

What you can expect from me:

- I prefer arguments that are simple and historically proven

- I pay attention to crossfire

- I value the last few speeches the most

- Speaker points start from 28 and go up or down from there

.

For other events I am completely lay but I do value these:

- Clear speaking

- Vocal variety

- Simplicity of content

- Evidence if applicable

I am a lay parent judge. My daughter made this paradigm, I have normal topic knowledge but no debate experience.

I'm not keeping track of prep time or speech time, that is your responsibility. Track your opponents prep and speech times.

Don't know any debate terms or tech arguments, please be respectful and polite during the round. Please also help make judging easier for me, I do not know the format of debate or any speech times.

First time parent judge. Please time your speeches and speak at an understandable pace.

Good Morning. I am a parent Judge and have judged only few times. Make sure your arguments are clear so that I can understand and judge accurately. No new arguments in final focus, I won't evaluate them, and please weigh.

add me to any email chains devi.poonguzhali@gmail.com.

Hello, I am a parent judge. I have two years of judging experience. I am looking for clear and organized presentations as well as a strong knowledge on the topic and your case. I expect you are professional and you respect your opponent. Best of luck!

Updated 1/1/25 for ASU HDSHC

I am an experienced lay judge and very appreciative of the opportunity to share a room with you. Most important issue informing my PF ballot collapse/weigh in summary/ff (see below) and for LD is speed of delivery - do not speak faster than 100 wpm. I always ballot for the debater who speaks the slowest, always. Advice if arguing before a panel.

Public Form

ASU PF - I have a layman's knowledge of Africa, the AU, the Horn of Africa, clan v western governance and the movements over the past 75 years for self determination by areas such as Somaliland.

If you adapt to the two preferences below and your opponent fails to adapt you will earn my ballot. To be clear, if you collapse to a single issue and weigh and your opponent runs the flow you will prevail in the round and my ballot will be signed and uploaded while your opponent runs the flow.,

1. Please collapse in summary and weigh in final focus.

2. Do not run the flow in summary or ff. - Rather present the key voting issue in the round, your warranted rationale for that issue and weigh against your opponent.

Public Forum Debate stresses that speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery.

Both PF and LD - scroll down for specific preferences for each type of debate

Warranting > evidence

Truth > tech

Simple > complex

Less > more

1. Don't spread. And if you normally spread and decide not to spread in a round because its a lay judge, you are probably still spreading from the perspective of the judge. Slow it WAY down.
   
   

2. Lay judges don't flow, they take notes. You win them over via persuasion, not technical tech>truth stuff. That means simple, clear arguments, delivered TO them, not read at them. This is important, talk with the judge do not read case or rebuttal.
   
   

3. Make your argument to them the same way you would to your friends or relatives. IK, this is point 2 repeated but is it critical.
   
   

4. In fact, a good model for debating successfully in front of a lay judge is to imagine the debate was being conducted in a darkened auditorium talking to general audience that is interested in the topic, doesn't know much and wants to learn more. You would never talk to that audience they way you talk in a debate. The lay judge is a member of the public sitting in that darkened audience. That means presentation, organization, clarity and connection are critical.

Lincoln Douglas

LD - the 2024 National final is worth reviewing. Note speed of debate, clarity in argument and delivery to the audience. Both finalists qualified via the Last Chance Tournament!

Adapt to speed, please. At a late December 2024 tournament 3 of my 4 ballots were default ballots as one debater failed to adapt, spread their case and lost. I despise this type of ballot as I really am interested in your analysis so don't exclude me from the round.

This topic is - should - so I value philosophical reasoning related directly to your value as you advocate. See below for my view of efficacy and implementation as arguments that I tend to dismiss.

Summary LD Expectations - Next to advice #1 below this is your most important piece of advice: In your last 3 minutes of speaking you should collapse to your single most important or valid argument, provide me with voters, and weigh the round

1. Do not spread. Let me repeat do not spread. I know it's in your DNA but do not spread. I always vote for the debater who speaks slower. Always.

2. I am a traditional values judge as this is the foundation for this event. Therefore invest your time and energy on value. Clarity in defining this value will go a long way to earning my ballot. Investing time in side by side comparison to your opponent's value with a clear and simple explanation for why I should prefer your value will go a long long way to earning my ballot.

3. This is not policy debate therefore there is no requirement for a plan or for implementation. Invest your limited time in value analysis, resolution analysis and rebuttal, not on implementation. I tend to dismiss all solvency arguments in LD.

4. Traditional debate therefore no progressive debate or critique.

5. Counter plans - these must be directly tied to the resolution and utilize argumentation, evidence and data that would be a part of the research considered by a well prepared AFF. If any of these elements are absent, I will reject the counter plan and ballot accordingly.

6. I reject on their face all extinction impacts.

7. I value analysis and warranting over evidence. The best way to lose my ballot is to read a list of cards, indicate your opponent has no cards and unleash some debate math - ie "Judge my view of resolution will reduce recidivism by 150.3% resulting in a reduction of poverty world wide of 173,345,321 and leading to growth in Georgia of 13.49% which will increase the standard of living in Athens by 22.32% and reduce polarization by 74.55% which will ensure that representative democracy will . . . . blah, blah, blah. BTW, when I am exposed to debater math you should know what I hear is blah, blah, blah. So . . . invest your time in simple, clear (hopefully logical) warranting - no need for cards or debater math. You know, I know, your parents know that statistics/empirics prove nothing. If Nobel winning social scientists have the humility to acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to determine causality, you should too, so avoid the correlation/causality offense or defense.

8. Quality over quantity, less is more, therefore those debaters who collapse to a single argument and weigh this argument earn my ballot. In fact, those rare (delightful) debaters who provide a logical narrative based upon a clear value and throughout the round, focus on a single, clear, simple argument make for a breath of fresh air, meaningful 45 minutes of debate and a lasting learning experience. These types of rounds are as rare as a lunar eclipse and I value and treasure these rounds and debater(s) - less than a dozen over my years of adjudication.

9. Simple is preferred to complex. I am a lay judge and while I have over 20 years experience and have judged over 160 rounds of LD in both face-to-face and online environments I find that the simplest argument tends to earn my ballot over the many arguments that are complex.

10. A negative debater who collapses to the Aff framework and definitions and then clearly explains a rationale for why negating the resolution achieves that value is from my point employing a very sound strategy when arguing before a community judge and overcomes the initial time disadvantage, The AFF debater who uses the 3rd AFF to only review the SINGLE most important argument, weigh clearly and simply and end with valid votes makes the most efficient and strategic use of speaking last.

11. Remember to clearly define all relevant terms in the resolution. Where there's a difference in approach on a term you'll need to clearly warrant for me why I should prefer your definition. PLEASE no cards or debater math.

Both PF and LD

Warranting > evidence

Truth > tech,

Simple > complex

Less > more

• Delivery: conversational in both pace and tone, connected directly to me through eye contact and a sense of concern with my comprehension, simple rather than complex with no jargon particularly debate jargon and minimal use of evidence. Debaters who choose an alternative delivery lose all credibility and I will be skeptical of all analysis presented by debaters who reject this delivery preference. Ted Kim paradigm (scroll to the bottom says it best

• Resolution Analysis: Clear, concise, well-supported analysis of the resolution. You can assume your judge has basic knowledge of Africa, the history of Somaliland, contemporary reactions pro and con regarding Independence movements with an existing countries in the continent.

• Argumentation: Simplicity, clarity, and effective are preferred in the comparison/contrast or weighing of competing arguments. I am hostile to extinction impacts and debater math use of which negatively impacts my assessment of the credibility of the team making use of these techniques.

• Evidence: Quality of reasoning and argumentation over quantity or complexity. Evidence plays a minimal part in my decision and debaters who read cards particularly in rebuttal will be challenged to earn my ballot.

Click on Frederick Changho paradigm for a clear set of expectations I support and share with the exception of the truth

Click on Scott Wood's paradigm for another paradigm that reflects my expectations, particularly good v bad form.

Congress

1. Congressional debate - elite debaters come prepared to argue both sides of all bills, never read a speech, anticipate rebuttal in CX, know the burdens in speaking first, mid and last in the course of legislative debate and accordingly speak at all three points in the Congressional session and are ready, willing and able to PO. I begin each session with the PO ranked first and the bar to surpass an elite PO is Jordanesque or Taurasiesque or Clarkesque. So, I ballot accordingly. I can only think of one time in the past 10 years that the PO failed to make my top 6 in rank. So, PO and do it well.

2. First AFF/NEG - easiest speeches to prepare and delivery. Delivery should be polished, organization and transitions would be clear, all analysis should be well warranted.

3. Mid round speeches (2nd AFF/NEG to 4th AFF/NEG) are more challenging than First AFF/NEG and potentially will earn higher rankings. These speeches should be extempted, not read and should interact in a clear and meaningful manner with prior speeches.

4. End of round (summary/crystallization) most important and potentially highest ranked speeches if you meet the burden.

5. DO NOT BREAK CYCLE. This will result in a rank reduction to last in the chamber. DO NOT BREAK CYCLE.https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHl2Ri-Sh4sA7NvU_ap9CcvsPoH1dAxuxjdVooP-_Q0/edit?usp=drivesdk

BONUS INFO

1. Excellent overview of Congress expectations.

2. PO resources - all potential PO candidates are encouraged to review:
   A. Presiding officer cheat sheet . B. Congressional Debate Presiding Officer Guide

What lay judges vote on.

Why I love speech and debate

Concerns I share about debate

I am a parent judge.

Please keep it simple. For your arguments, please speak slowly and clearly, and make sure to emphasize to me what you truly want to get across in your speeches. Again, I am not experienced so I will not be able to get down every single thing you bring up in your speeches. It is your responsibility to make your narrative clear and tell me why you're winning.

I would prefer no progressive argumentation (theory, Ks, etc) as I have no idea how to evaluate them.

Be respectful to your opponents and have fun.

Parent Judge of current PF debater in NatCir.

This is my first tournament.

Make Sure to Signpost.

Speak Clearly.

Don't run anything other than substance.

I am a lay judge. Would like to provide constructive feedback.

I am a parent Judge . I'll be looking for clear and organized communication, logical argument structure, and strong, compelling evidence, as well as effective refutation of opposing points. Confidence and persuasive body language will also make a strong impression.

Stay focused on the central topic, avoid unnecessary spreading, and best of luck to all participants!"

Hello all!

In my 5 years of judging debates (particularly PF) as a parent, I've developed a straightforward approach to judging. I believe in the importance of clear, evidence-based arguments and respectful interaction.

Rather than overwhelming with quantity, I value the depth and quality of the points made (no spreading!). I enjoy seeing debaters engage in thoughtful discussion during crossfire and creating clash throughout the round.

When it comes to evidence, reading card after card without impacts is ineffective, and I appreciate concise, well-supported claims. My aim as a judge is simple: to provide a fair, constructive evaluation and to foster an environment where debaters can showcase their skills and grow in their understanding of the topics at hand.

I'm a sibling judge. My sister debates. Please speak slowly.

• Do not spread.
• Treat me like a lay judge.

Good luck!

I am a lay judge and this is my first time judging a public forum tournament.
Please send your speech doc or evidence to anjanamyneni@gmail.com as it will help me follow along.

- I am familiar with some of the norms of PF debate, as my son has been debating for the last 3 years.
- Be respectful to your teammates, opponents, and judge, especially in crossfire, and let them finish talking; Do not interrupt them.
- I would like to see strong, topical evidence that supports the argument directly.
- Any new arguments or evidence in final focus will not be considered. I urge you to bring them up earlier in the round so that your opponents can respond.
- Please weigh your arguments and please make it clear which case is more important
- I will be taking notes on the debate.
- I am ok with collapsing or dropping cases, but make sure to re-explain the argument.

Speaker Points:

<27: Rarely given and only when using poor or offensive language.
27-29: Average and most people will get somewhere in this range
28.5-30: Fantastic!

I enjoy speakers who are confident in what they say and speak on the slower side. I come from a background of tech. Please be respectful to your opponents and have a great debate!

My name is Murgesh Ramasamy. This is my second time judging. So please be respectful and kind to your opponent. Please speak moderate speed.

My debate background is in Parli but I am familiar with all formats of debate. I am okay with all forms of arguments you want to run (T's/K's/whatever) as long as it serves a purpose in the round I dislike when debaters run a shell just for the sake of running an argument. I am okay with speed in round spreading is also fine (as long as your opponents are okay with it too) however I may not get everything you say on my flow and if I don't hear it I won't evaluate the debate with it so if something is important make sure to slow down. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask.

howdy,

former HS and college competitor

I judge quite a bit

• treat others the way you want to be treated
• I don't do email chains, NSDA docs, speech drop or google docs are the way to go
• if using historical evidence you must address the 5 C's of historical analysis if not theres an L waiting for you

IE's -

MS/HS - you do youu!!

Collegiate - you know what to do

Congress -

no rehash

its ok to agree but have your own contentions/speech

stay active thru round

PO - if you don't state your gaveling procedures almost immediately I'm gonna rank you last

don't lie about evidence

PF - will auto down if you say exclusionary things and or things def not true (holocaust never happened)

can be tech or truth... all depends on what you run

Don't waste my time, flips and pre flows better be done before start caz if not imma start tanking speaks, try me I dare you

Condo/Fiat - IMO should be left to LD/CX but if you bring it up I'll evaluate it

resolutions/topics sometimes have loose wording... take advantage of that

impact cal is pretty neato, I love it and it be a game changer

best of luck going for a technical knock out

I like Disclosure Theory.... but if your wiki is BS and or not fully filled I will tear you apart

^

As a judge I know the rules better than you , don't preach them to me for this T

when citing evidence , be sure to say title , publisher , date

MY GO TO RULE FOR PF.... the Michael Scott rule - K.I.S - "Keep It Simple'

LD - if its a state or bid tournament send a doc , if not then don't bother

if spreading you better be clear or imma down, too bad

^ not gonna say clear

tech or truth?? all depends on what you run

P/CP - better be specific , if so I am the judge for you

Trad - I'm an ok judge

K - HECK YEA!!!!!

LARP - I like it... but can go either way

Tricks/Friv T/Performance/Phil/other T

^ unless you're running nihilism Phil I will get it... if not then don't

^^ auto strike

CX - LOL

NOPE, Will not judge

Worlds - I expect to see clash

don't paraphrase evidence

no speed, this needs to be conversational

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them

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

I really value creative, introspective and real rhetoric - trust me this is how you win me

style - a simple claim, warrant and impact will do just fine

don't try a PF take on this event

Should any questions need to be asked ... ask before round!

Best of LUCK 2024-2025 competitors !

Note: For events other than policy, scroll to the bottom

Email: Please put me on the email chain — jramrocks17@gmail.com

About me:

· 2 years of NDT-CEDA debate at Liberty University (2020 and 2021 seasons)

· 2x NDT participant and 2x CEDA Double-Octa finalist

· 1 year of coaching policy at Liberty

· 4 years of policy and 3 years of extemp at Prosper High School in Texas

· I was a K debater most of my career but switched to policy for my last year of college debate. I've been on both the K and policy sides of the library and want to see you do what you do best

TLDR: You do you. Tab/flex judges don’t exist as we all have our biases, but I’ll try my best to be “Tab”. I have run and seen all types of debate and am fine in any type of round. Please don't change your strategy based off of my paradigm or what you've heard I prefer. I am tech over truth

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

Argumentative Preferences:

Policy Affs: Do what you want, but I think that teams benefit from extending entire advantages in each speech. I like it when the Aff uses its 1AC to debate each off case and uses its advantages to frame the whole debate on each flow

Counter Plans: I can enjoy a good CP debate. I have no problem with multiple CP’s but will vote off of condo if you’re losing it (more than 3 condo is maybe a little sus, but that's up for debate). I've gone for sus process CPs a lot, and I think I have no Aff or Neg bias on theory. I personally believe that judge kick is a good thing, as it upholds the Aff's burden to prove that it is better than the CP and the status quo, but I will vote based on the flow and how I am instructed

Disadvantages: I think strong policy teams use DA’s to turn case and engage in in-depth impact analysis and framing. The truth level of the DA and quality of your cards is relevant. Be sure to extend your whole link chain in each speech

Impact Turns: I’m cool with them and think that they can be strategic—just don’t double turn yourself. I think the level of truth does matter (ie dedev is better than spark but still questionable), but at the end of the day I will vote on tech and card quality

K: K’s are cool on the Aff and Neg. Don’t assume I understand your literature base—I’m most familiar with literature surrounding capitalism, militarism, international relations, sexuality, and to a lesser extent post modernism, blackness, and colonialism, but you should always explain your arguments in depth. I think that in order to win on a K you usually must resolve the links and impacts either through a material alternative or through framing/education/methodology. I will vote on epistemology framing, but there is some truth to "tie links to the plan" so this needs to be debated out

Framework:

· I have experience both reading K affs and going for framework/T-USFG, and will try my best to remove any bias

· I want to be convinced that I am voting for the best model of debate. At the end of the round, I will weigh how much each side solves for the other's offense and how each side frames their offense

· I strongly dislike stale framework debates where teams read generic blocks and arguments, and where there is no contextualization to the other team’s arguments. If you win a round just because the other team dropped some of your generic blocks, you gained almost no education out of that round and your speaks won’t be great

· I think that it is better for the Neg when they focus on TVAs/switch sides as opposed to focusing on their impacts alone

· I love it when the Neg uses clash/fairness/any impact to turn the Aff and answer their offense

· I will weigh Aff offense and want to hear it contextualized to the Neg's explanation of FW; "USFG bad" is probably not enough. I want to hear how the Aff’s counter interp solves the Neg's offense

· I lean towards the belief that fairness is an internal link to education or other impacts, but if you explain and win why fairness is an impact, I am willing to vote on it

Topicality: I'm cool with voting off of any interp that you’re winning, as I view T like I view any other argument and won't refuse to vote Neg just because I think they have a bad/untrue interp, but if it's a close debate you probably need a fair interp to win. The winning side will win that their model of debate is best, although proving in round abuse (like the Aff no-linking core DA's) will greatly help the Neg. Have a clear interp, violation, and standards that you extend in every speech

Competing Interpretations vs. Reasonability: I default to Competing Interpretations because nowhere else in debate is “we kinda don’t link to this argument” a good answer. Debate is about competing methods and worlds, and I believe that Affs use the reasonability argument to win ballots from judges who don't like T debates. I’ll vote on reasonability if you’re winning tho for sure

Theory: I think that theory can be good in certain instances, but it can also be unnecessary. Just have a clear interp and violation with voters and don’t go for a ridiculous shell that was obviously meant as a time suck unless it’s dropped or very under-covered. If you go for condo against a team with one conditional advocacy or something ridiculous like that, I will vote for you if you're winning, but you won't be happy with your speaks

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

Random things:

· Speak as fast as you want, just slow down on tags and make sure I can tell when you're reading a tag vs evidence text. Whatever speed you are at be clear as long as you are able :)

·Emailing probably isn't prep but if you are talking to your partner, typing excessively, writing on your flows, or taking over a minute or two I will count prep

· Please feel free to time yourselves. I can time as well in case you need it for speeches/prep, but please ask

· Open CX is fine unless tournament rules say otherwise

· Please don’t be rude or mean, and don’t discriminate against others or read arguments that discriminate against others

· I refuse to judge any "death good" arguments, mostly because the burden shouldn't be on the other team to ask me to end the round

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

Scale Thing I see judges do:

Policy----------X--------------K

Condo good----X--------------------Condo Bad

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

Death good is valid------------------------X No!

Ks of fiat-------------------X-----Fiat always good

Process CPs good-------X-----------------Salty 2A

Non-resolutional procedurals are bad----X--------------------Veganism/Christianity type procedurals

Perms are legitimate X------------------------The 2NR I gave in my first novice round

The above is set in stone--------------------X----I will flow the debate and vote on tech

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

Speaks:

· Speaker points are low key an arbitrary vibe check, but I try to give speaks based off of your speeches, overall strategy, and cross ex

· A 28 to 28.5 is average, and it’ll and go up/down based on your performance throughout the round

· I will adjust how I give speaks based on the tournament. I’ll probably give you higher speaks for your performance at a local than if the exact same round took place at a bid tournament

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

Other Events:

PF Paradigm: I did policy debate in high school and college, which has definitely shaped how I view debate. That being said, I have judged a lot of PF debates the past few years. I am familiar with the norms of PF and will judge accordingly. I will vote for the team that best accesses an impact under the framing I am told to vote for. If your “impact” is economic decline and nothing more, why should I care? Be sure to tell me what will result from voting for your side (stopping structural violence, preventing war, saving how many lives, etc.) I will default to consequentialist framing unless given something else. You need to extend an argument in the summary in order to extend it in the final focus. Unless it is against the norms/rules of the tournament, speak as fast as you want as long as you are clear!

I think that debates are better when more evidence is sent out. Obviously it is up to the debaters, but clash is better when both sides have access to as much evidence as possible. When you send out a card please make sure it is cut, and please do not send a link to an article and ask the judges/other team to "control F" to find your quote. Also, if you mention/extend a card in the summary/final focus, please make sure it is sent out.

If an advocacy like a K with an alternative is read in PF, I will not automatically reject it. However, I am open to "framework" type arguments that tell me to vote down the team for reading an advocacy in PF. If you think it is unfair for advocacies to be in PF, tell me how it harms you as a debater to have to debate it (say you are unprepared which harms the quality of debates, education, etc). I will treat this like any other argument, meaning that the pros and cons of allowing advocacies in PF should be debated and weighed.

Note: A lot of teams in PF have been taking time after the start time of the round to pre-flow or prep. Please don't do this when I am judging—prep ends at start time

LD: LD is cool! I have some minor experience. I’ll probably judge it like a short policy round. Anything from framework debate to K debate to stock debate is cool and I’ve ran all of that in LD. I’ve heard that alts aren’t that important in LD K debates, but I value them so please explain it. I’ll probably vote based on which side better accesses the winning framework in the round. I hear that LD likes RVIs for some reason, so I'll vote on those if I'm told why

Congress: I did congress a few times in HS and was first alt to Nats my senior year. I want good content but will also value your speaking skills

Speech: I competed in extemp in high school and broke at NSDA in FX, and I enjoy good speeches. I will weigh the content of your speech vs your performance/tone differently based on the specific event

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly.

I am a parent judge, who has judged a reasonable number of rounds. You may speak fast, as long as you are understandable. Cite your sources as much as possible. If you call for evidence outside of cross-ex, you will be using your prep time. Also, please avoid asking super long questions during cross-ex, and allow the other team to answer. I give speaker points based on strategy and presentation. I may dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, please start an email chain and add me at subashri.r@gmail.com.

Debate is about having fun, enjoy it!!

Please be respectful to your opponents. If you need to talk quickly, please make sure you do so with a clear voice.

I am a parent judge who is just looking for a clean and simple debate, with Kritiks kept to a minimum. Please remind me of the topic and the timings before you begin the round; this will help me keep track of the debate properly. Introducing yourself before every time you speak and making it clear what speech it is will also be appreciated!

In terms of the actual round: Slow down when you are speaking because I will only weigh what I properly understand. Additionally, stress the impact of what you are trying to convince me of; when determining the winner of the round, I will mostly be looking at the impact of what your side is doing rather than speaking, and make sure that your argument is well-rounded and has no holes. Cross-examination is an important part of debate; but using what your opponent concedes in cross is often more important. If your opponent's concede something and you don't bring it up within your speech, I won't count it when weighing the debate. Keep closing speeches short and to the point without rambling on about statistics and last minute rebuttals will solidify your point and make it much more likely to vote on your side.

Overall, just speak slowly and get your points through, and remember that debate is just for fun!

General Stuff:

My name is Soph Rubin and my pronouns are they/them. I debated circuit LD for four years at Brentwood Highschool so I'm good with most arguments and spreading. I was mainly a k debater but I have read larp, theory, phil, tricks and most other forms of arguments at some point so don't be shy to read what you're interested in. I will do my best to judge exclusively off of the flow. Make sure to link all of your impacts back through the framework so I know how to evaluate it within the context of the round. There are a few things I will not tolerate as a judge; any forms of sexism, racism, homophobia/transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, disrespect towards your opponent, or disrespect towards myself - I will seriously doc speaker points for such remarks and have no issue stopping a round if it gets out of control. Outside of that, have fun with your round! Debate doesn't have to be so serious and scary, I will enjoy your round more if you are enjoying yourself. Here are some more details about my preferences/biases as a judge.

First, please put me on the email chain, my email is brentwoodsr@gmail.com.

truth --------------x------ tech

tricks --------------------x real arguments

reasonability -------------x------- competing interps

identity k's ------------------x-- cap k's (structural)

education ----------x---------- fairness

pre fiat -----x--------------- post fiat

traditional -----------------x--- circuit

epistemic modesty -------x------------- epistemic confidence

high probability low magnitude -x------------------- low probability high magnitude

Plan Aff's/CP's/DA's:

All of these are cool if they're well written and backed up. I am not interested in DA's that have a 0.00001% chance of happening but lead to extinction - most things could lead to extinction if they had a crazy enough link chain. Impact turns are great - use them smartly and I will vote on it! I am sightly prejudiced to death good impact turns but then again I read SPARK for 2 years and did great with it so if you can articulate the nuance between some death good and all death good I will get it.

Theory:

I'm okay with any kind of theory debate but if the shell does seem frivolous, I will er on the side of reasonability. If the shell interacts with frameworks/k's please give warrants for what I should evaluate first. In later speeches, please stay organized, it is very easy for theory flows to be all over the place - this is hell for judges - please organize yourself before you run through the t shell.

K's:

The majority of what I read in high school was k's so I'm pretty well versed on the current literature and will probably be able to understand your k so long as it actually does something - post fiat or pre fiat. While I tend to prefer structural k's over identity k's but I think all lenses are interesting to play around with in rounds. The one argument I don't love are identity arguments directed towards your opponent - you will not win the round because you've pointed out something about your opponent's identity. I would say the burden is on the k debater to establish specific and unique links to your opponent's case as well as doing a lot of work on the framework debate. All that being said, I really enjoy a good k and if you can debate it well, I will be impressed.

Non-topical Aff's:

Non-topical aff's are fun, I read a non-topical ableism aff my whole junior year and loved it. If you want to read a non-topical aff, please have reasons specific to the resolution as to why affirming if harmful, not just generic state-bad stuff. Also, on the T debate, if you are going to leverage claims in the aff against certain t arguments, you must first justify why the k comes first or why doing so isn't circular reasoning. Performative offense is cool but it is the aff's burden to tell me how to weigh it, if you don't, I won't weigh it at all.

Framework/Phil:

I really enjoy good framework rounds when they are interesting - if you and your opponent generally have compatible frameworks, don't get caught up in the framework debate. If there is real clash though, I enjoy seeing that discourse. I get why everyone reads util but if you want to make the round interesting and read something else, please do I love that stuff. I will always begin to evaluate the round by evaluating the line by line on the framework flow; you have to win framework before you worry about winning your arguments unless you can link back all your offense under your opponent's framework. I am also comfortable with dense phil if you want to full send and read something crazy - go for it!

Gabe Rusk ☮️&♡

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Somaliland Topic ASU/Ivy RR/Emory

Secession not the HBO show Succession. SECEDE NOT SUCCEED GREG.

Era-tree-uh (Eritrea)

Moe-guh-DEE-shoe (Mogadishu)

DJuh-booty (Djibouti)

Gulf of Aye-den (Gulf of Aden)

Who-thee (Houthi)

Al Shuh-bob (Al-Shabaab)

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at ISD, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

1 (Thriving) - 5 (Vibes Are Dwindling) - 10 (Death of the Soul)

LARP -1

Topical Kritiks - 4

Theory - 5

Non-T Kritiks - 6

"Friv" Theory/Trix - 8

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. This is why metaweighing is so important. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc is a means to differentiate but you need to give me warrants, evidence, reasons why prob > mag for example. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• I would prefer if case docs were sent prior to the constructives, please.
• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence.Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do.

• Second rebuttal must at least respond to turns/terminal defense against their own case.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

I am new to judging and debates as well. I immigrated to USA from India 10 years back, but I still struggle with following different accents. Please be slow but not soft.
I will try and be as objective as possible when I evaluate arguments, and give each argument equal credence.
I have no prior experience with the topic and would learn along as we listen to everyone's perspective.

Thank you.

PF:

I did PF and qualled to gold TOC twice.

- if its not in summary it should not be in FF; extend links, warrants, and impacts please don't just say u can extend this

- Frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, defense is sticky but I will not evaluate offense unless it is extended and implicated

- speed is fine. if you will be spreading send me a speech doc (harishri2021@gmail.com)

- sign post please

- tech > truth

• Ks and theory are fine if you run it well and explain (do not do it just to confuse ur opponents)

please for the love of god preflow before the round if I have to wait for you I will be spiced, possibly enough to drop ur speaks

MOST IMPORTANT: if you want me to evaluate ur turns then u must do a 180 degree turn every time you read one. (this is a joke but I will boost ur speaks for it)

Parli:

• make me laugh
• do not make up evidence

livingston high school '20 (4 years PF, debated @ TOC + Nats) | university of california, berkeley '24

ishan.saxena@berkeley.edu for the email chain

warrants matter (in all speeches would be ideal)

comparatively weigh

debate however you want

be a good person

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

If you attempt to exceed a speed that your enunciation can handle, I will yell "clear" at least once before I stop flowing and try to focus on what you are saying

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed in Policy, sofast can be ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

DISCLOSURE: I regard disclosure as a tool for rich schools with multiple employees to prep out schools with less resources. This is not a theory arg I am synmpathetic to.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

https://victorybriefs.substack.com/p/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor

In Public Forum debate, I value analysis over raw facts. Simply stating information is helpful, but explaining its origins and significance through thoughtful analysis shines brighter. Avoid shallow rebuttals that simply repeat opposing arguments. Instead, provide deeper reasoning to dismantle them effectively.

As a judge, I appreciate clear, well-paced speaking, backed by reliable evidence and solid understanding of sources. Remember, Public Forum aims to engage a general audience, so keep arguments accessible and easy to grasp.

If you encounter unfair or rule-breaking arguments from your opponent, be prepared to identify the violation and explain its dismissal in your rebuttal, summary, and final focus. Conversely, if you use unconventional tactics, justify your departure from the norm with clear reasoning to allow your opponent to respond effectively.

Ultimately, factual evidence and impactful real-world examples hold the key to victory. Prioritize these elements to sway the judge.

Bio:

I am an assistant PF coach at Nueva and Park City.

I am a former director of speech and debate at Park City.

I have been a PF lab leader at NDF, CNDI, and PFBC.

I mostly competed in PF in high school, but also dabbled in LD and speech.

I judge about 100 rounds per year. Most of these rounds are PF, though I sparingly -- and generally begrudgingly -- judge Policy, Parli, and LD.

I study economics at the University of Utah.

Broadly Applicable Tea:

-- While I've included some thoughts on different types of arguments below, my foremost preference is that you make your favorite argument in front of me.

-- I have not yet found The Truth in my life, so I will evaluate the round as it is debated.

-- Debate is a communicative activity. I will never flow off a speech doc.

-- I believe PF, LD, and Policy are all evidence-based formats, so quality evidence -- and quality spin on evidence -- is very impressive and persuasive. I flow author names and prefer that extensions include those.

-- Be silly and down to earth and not dominant or aggressive. A sense of humor is greatly appreciated.

-- I have no qualms with speed in any format, but if you speak at Mach-10, consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears. Clarity, explanation, organization, and the use of full sentences dramatically increase my speed threshold. I will 'clear' you twice before I stop flowing.

-- Impact comparison is very important to me. It is likely that both teams will prove some harm/benefit of the AFF. Whether that becomes a net harm/benefit of the AFF often hinges on weighing. Tell me why I should vote for you even if I buy your opponents' argument.

-- Tell me how to decide what's true and resolve competing claims. The team that makes the most warranted "prefer our evidence/empirics because" statements tends to win my ballot.

-- I do not time speeches or track prep. Please hold one another accountable so I don't have to. If I have begun doing so, you should all feel called out.

-- I'm a stickler about extensions. In my RFDs, I sometimes find myself saying things like: "the Neg wins that the Aff causes a recession, but I'm not sure why a recession is bad, so I ignore it." This also illustrates the importance of terminalizing impacts -- such statements are most likely when there was not an impact to begin with.

-- I don't think it is good to advocate for death or self harm, and I do not think that is a bias I will be persuaded to overcome.

-- I have never voted on presumption and I doubt you'll be the first to change that.

Evidence and Email Chains:

-- Anyone who does not meet NSDA evidence standards should politely strike me.

-- Please utilize an email chain to share speech docs. Title it something logical and addgavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com. Please also add nuevadocs@gmail.com.

-- I tend not to open the email chain. If I'm instructed to read a specific card, I will.

-- You should not need a marked doc. An inability to flow is a skill issue that should not delay the round. Speaker points will be lower if you delay the round for marked docs.

PF

-- I will only vote on arguments that are in both summary and final focus.

-- Defense is never sticky. If you give me a reason to disbelieve your opponents' claims, that same reason must be present in each subsequent speech for me to agree with it at the end of the debate.

-- I like to see weighing done as soon as possible. If weighing is introduced in the second summary, I'll be much more sympathetic to quick answers to it in the first final focus. No new weighing in final focus.

-- Warrants for your weighing will be most persuasive when predicated on claims from your evidence.

-- Crossfire and flex prep exist so that we do not need a 'flow clarification' timeout during the debate.

LD/Policy

-- I judge Policy/LD a few times most years.

-- (Almost certainly correctly) assume I know nothing about the topic.

-- Top speed may challenge me, but you do you. I'll 'clear' twice.

-- I'm willing to evaluate nearly any argument, but I will be most comfortable hearing the kinds you would expect in a Public Forum round.

Kritiks:

-- I have coached a couple K teams and tend to find critical arguments very interesting. That said, it has not been my focus as a debater or as a coach.

-- Assume I know nothing about your literature.

-- Please keep in mind that I am of incredibly average intelligence.

-- I will not vote on arguments premised on another debater's identity. An argument premised on your own identity is certainly permissible.

-- Aim to engage. I am most interested in criticisms that directly indict the Aff or otherwise have a link to the topic. I'm less interested in criticisms that rely on a ROTB or framework argument to exclude other offense in the round. Conversely, I am most impressed by Aff teams willing to contest the thesis of the critique.

-- Consider me a lay judge in this realm, but feel free to read one if you would find it strategic or fulfilling.

Theory:

-- I will vote on disclosure theory if a team does not disclose at all.I would otherwise strongly prefer not to judge a theory debate. I will evaluate the round as debated, but I will use speaker points punitively if you ignore this preference.

-- Unless I feel compelled to contact DCFS, I will be skeptical of accusations of "abuse."

IVIs:

-- I tend not to like these arguments.

Tricks:

-- This is where I will be most likely to intervene in my decision. I would rather watch paint dry.

I have judged a few PF debate tournaments in the past and so I do have some experience. My daughter has been debating for just over two years now at a competitive level and so I am familiar with the layout of the rounds in PF debate. I am comfortable with medium level speed, not too fast, and please speak clearly to ensure accurate delivery of the content. I will flow the debate and make my decision mainly on the strength of the arguments. I expect both teams to be respectful of each other. I have a background in Finance.

Hello all,

I am a new parent judge and I would prefer that you talk at a medium to normal pace and with good clarity. I will be judging based on which argument I believe is the best, so please give clear arguments for your points and good rebuttals to the opponents points. I will take into account your tone of voice and how passionate you sound about this topic. Most importantly I care about how you demonstrate your points to me and whether or not they are easily understood by a person with little experience on the topic. Please also keep me in the email chain(jigneshpshah@yahoo.com) so I can better know your arguments.

Good Luck and have fun!

Intro: My Name is Nirav Shah and I Will Be Your Judge Today. I Am a Traditional Flow Pf Judge With Extensive Experience. I Flow All Speeches With Great Detail. My Son is a Debater for Dougherty Valley (Ivan). I've Judged at Gtoc, Cal Rr, Stanford, Berk, Presentation, Asu, Cal States, and So Much More.

General Pf Preferences: I Try to Keep My Evaluation Exclusively to the Flow. In-round Weighing of Arguments Combined With the Strength of Link and Conceded Arguments. I Default to Arguments With Substantive Warranted Analysis. Please Collapse on the Most Important Voters in the Round. The Defense Should Be Extended in Both Summary Speeches if You Want to Go for It in the Final Focus. Be Respectful in Cross as I Pay Close Attention to It. Don't Speak Too Fast but if You Do Please Give Me the Speech Doc. Time Yourself and Make Your Opponents Accountable for Their Speech and Prep Timings. Weigh Your Impacts and Explain the Comparison. Provide an Off-time Roadmap in Every Back Half Speech Onwards From the Second Rebuttal. Time Yourself and Make Your Opponents Accountable for Their Speech and Prep Timings. Weigh Your Impacts and Explain the Comparison. Provide an Off-time Roadmap in Every Back Half Speech Onwards From the Second Rebuttal

Evidence: I Strongly Encourage Debaters to Cut Cards as Opposed to Hyperlinking a Google Doc. I Call for a Lot of Evidence After the Round Instead of Looking Through It During the Round. (Only Contested Pieces of Evidence)

Speaker Points (on Average 29.3): Used to Indicate How Good I Think Debaters Are in a Particular Round Along With Substance

Prog: I Have a High Bar for Abuse for Theory Argument but You Can Run Them as Long as It is a Genuine Violation. I Wouldn't Run Any Non-topical Ks on Me. Topical Ks Are Fine. I have extensive experience with Sec, Militarization, Orientalism, Cap, EcoAuthoritiasm (Ill buy More but It'll Be My First)

Other: I'll give an Oral RFD

Have Fun!

Feel Free to Email Me Any Questions or Concerns. (Also Add Me to the Ev Email Chain if You Are Making One). Email: Niravdhira@gmail.com

I debated pf for 5 years. My pronouns are he/him.

Time your own prep and speeches.

Only include content that is read in your speech doc.

Be respectful.

Notes:

- Tech > Truth

- Run your own prep time if it takes longer than a minute to disclose requested cards.

- The second speaking team must respond to both sides of the flow

- Do not paraphrase evidence.

- Sourcing your evidence is important!

- Signpost in all your speeches!

Have fun and enjoy the tournament!

Feel free to email me any questions: shivenshekar01@gmail.com

Hi,

I am Arundhati, a Parent Judge. This is a good learning experience for me. More rounds I judge more I learn about PF debate.

Please speak clearly and slowly so that I can follow.

Simple , clear arguments and rebuttal helps me to make a decision.

All the best for your round!

thank you!

I'm a parent judge and both of my kids have done PF debate. I am an engineer by profession and worked for 15 years in large corporations in executive role, now I have been an entrepreneur for the past 10 years. My main thing is that if I can't hear you clearly, I can't evaluate your arguments. Speak clearly and be respectful to other team.

"I am a parent judge. I judge off of the flow. No Spreading and don't use a lot of jargon. Weighing and framework is important for me. I will give higher speaker points for debaters that maintain professionalism and are calm and respectful."

I did PF for four years, graduating in 2021. I qualified to Gold TOC and Nationals and finaled Blake and Harvard my senior year, so I can keep up with most rounds.

Tech > Truth

I'll vote for anything, but there is an inherent burden of proof that needs to be met for me to consider an argument. I won't assume something functions as offense/defense solely because you tell me it does.

I'm not super strict on evidence ethics. I think it's very easy to respond to evidence the way you respond to any other argument, and I encourage you to do so. Paraphrasing is totally fine. It's more realistic, and you have to actually understand the content. I've seen way more evidence ethics issues with cut cards than paraphrased evidence. That said, please still have all your cards cut so evidence sharing runs smoothly. If you take too long, I'll dock speaks. I'll only call for evidence if it's disputed, and I actually need to read it to make a decision.

I have a surface-level understanding of progressive arguments (Theory, K, etc.). I understand the basics, but if you read them, there needs to be a lot of warranting. I will not vote for your argument if your warranting is just a bunch of jargon smushed together. Generally, I think paraphrasing is fine and disclosure is good, but I can be convinced either way.

If you're going to read an actual warranted framework, it needs to be read by first rebuttal at the latest. "Offensive overviews" in second rebuttal are dumb, and my threshold for a good response is much lower.

evidence < warrant < evidence + warrant

Cross doesn't matter (I'll still listen), but concessions are binding. Also, please be nice, it's really not that hard.

Frontline in second rebuttal. Conceded defense doesn't need to be extended in first summary (but definitely in FF)

Earlier the weighing the better. I'll allow new weighing in first final if there's no other weighing in the round, but nothing expanding on existing weighing (no new evidence, prereq analysis, etc.)

If you're going to do weighing, please do more than just pointing out that your impact number is larger. Obviously, I'll still evaluate it, but I want actual comparisons between arguments. Weighing impacts on probability makes no sense, please stop doing it. Strength of link means nothing to me if I don't have some kind of metric for comparing the strength of different links and a reason for why I should care about a link's relative strength.

I prefer slower tech rounds. Speed is still totally fine, just remember that the faster you go, the more likely it is that I miss something, and I'm not flowing off a speech doc. If you go fast in the first half, please at least slow down a little in the back half, especially in final focus.

If you don't signpost in summary and final focus, I will have no idea what is going on in the round, especially if you're going super fast and ignoring the line-by-line

I don't flow card names. If you say a card name, you need to tell me what the card says (including when you're extending stuff in sum/ff).

Please time each other. No grace period, finish what you were saying if you started before time was up, anything else won't be flowed

Extend the full link chain + warrants + evidence for whatever argument you're collapsing on in both summary and final focus. I will not evaluate something if it's not in both speeches or you just skip over your entire link story. Please don't make me drop you because you didn't extend something.

Pleeeeeease collapse.

Nothing new in summary or final focus unless it's responding to something new the other team read in their previous speech, except for weighing.

I default first speaking team.

I start at 28 speaks, and I'll go up or down based on how well I can understand you and how well you debate. Debating well with poor clarity warrants higher speaks than speaking clearly but debating poorly. I will probably give somebody a 30. I won't go lower than 27 unless you say something bigoted or are just straight up being mean.

Post rounding is fine. If you really think you won, odds are I missed something because you went too fast, and it was super blippy.

You don't have to call me judge, Arjun is fine and kinda preferred

For email chains, use arjunrsingh333@gmail.com

If you have any other questions, you can ask me before the round. I am willing to change any part of my paradigm if both teams agree (speech times are non-negotiable).

TL;DR

Extend through summary/final focus and weigh to win

Hello , I have judged several rounds and have a good understanding of debate theory and strategy.

When it comes to judging, I prioritize clarity, organization, and persuasion. I believe that a debater's job is to present a clear and convincing argument, and it's my job as a judge to evaluate how well they accomplish that goal. In my view, the most persuasive arguments are those that are backed up by evidence and logical reasoning, and that address the core issues of the debate.

I value fairness and respect in the debate community, and I expect all debaters to adhere to those principles as well. I also believe that the debaters should be civil and professional, both in their speeches and in their interactions with one another. Any instances of disrespectful behavior will be taken into account in my decision.

In terms of argumentation, I am open to all kinds of arguments, including policy, value, and fact-based arguments. However, I am not interested in hearing arguments that are discriminatory or disrespectful. I will not tolerate any form of hate speech or discriminatory remarks.

When it comes to evidence, I prefer quality over quantity. I value well-researched and relevant evidence that directly supports a debater's argument. Evidence that is taken out of context, misused, or irrelevant will not carry weight in my decision.

In terms of style, I appreciate debaters who are confident, articulate, and poised. However, style alone will not win the round for a debater. Substance and sound argumentation are key.

Finally, I believe that every round is a learning experience, and I encourage debaters to ask questions and seek feedback after the round. I will do my best to provide constructive criticism and offer suggestions for improvement.

I look forward to a fair and respectful debate. Good luck to all debaters!

I prefer that participants make strong few points rather than rattling off a lot of points and words fast. I Don’t understand debate jargon and I will vote based on strong effective well articulated reasoning on two or three core points that support your stance rather than fast spoken and voluminous content.
Be confident, be respectful and most importantly have fun.

Add me to the email chain/card doc: smoneysh@gmail.com

I flow but I don't consider myself completely tech (Flay judge)

Talk at a decent speed, don't go overtime (I don't flow after 10 secs overtime)

1. Signpost - This is is crucial, tell me where you are so my flow doesn't get messy
2. Frontline - If your team is first, summary frontline, if second, rebuttal frontline
3. Do weighing - tell me WHY I should vote for your impacts over your opponents
4. During crossfire be clear and confident (Clarity is where I give speaker points)

Just say "Aloha" when you introduce yourself for extra speaker points

Be Clear + Concise + Kind + Logical. Have Fun.

1. I am new to judging, so it would help if you speak in normal pace (marginal slow or fast is ok) and clearly.
2. Please be respectful towards your competitor teams.
3. Please stick to the prescribed time durations for each team.

Hi, this is my first time judging. I am a parent judge.

1. I flow the rounds but not as well as the judges that flow pf every weekend and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced (preferably slow) speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources but not everything needs to be carded for the value of the round but have good warranting if there is no cards.

2. Make eye contact with me and convince me with good evidence and a carefully made argument.

3. Do not be rude. I can deal with assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but it will be with bad speaks.

4. Crossfire: Do not talk over your opponent. Follow up questions can be useful, but be courteous to your opponents' need to question you. Discourtesy will result in deducted speaker points.

5. My preference is a debate that argues the assigned topic in good faith, I would prefer not to hear K Cases.

6. Please weigh or give voters, it really helps outline the round. Extend your arguments throughout speeches:)

7. As a first-time judge, some debate jargon is unfamiliar to me. Please try to avoid jargon unless you can quickly explain it to me.

8. I mostly do not disclose after round unless instructed by the tournament.

Have fun!!!

Hello Competitors!

I am a parent judge with limited experience in judging a debate round.

Please keep in mind the following:
1. Please please do NOT spread or rush. I like to write down points, if I am not then you are speaking too quickly.
2. Explain what you are saying clearly. Pretend as though I have no topic knowledge whatsoever.
3. Be respectful- don't say anything racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, etc.

(She, Her) I value truth over tech.

Email: mahalakshmi.srinivasan@gmail.com

Assistant Coach for Nueva

Add me to email chain: esteinberg01@wesleyan.edu

PF:

Extensions/General Preferences: A few sentences or a run-on containing a claim, warrant, and impact is sufficient to be considered "extended". However, arguments are usually harder to win on the flow with shallow extensions. The vast majority of teams seem to have issues mechanizing and thoroughly explaining each step of their link-chains. Going fast and covering the flow is not an excuse to avoid explaining your arguments - collapsing effectively and introducing weighing early will make it easier to flesh them out. If both teams are technically proficient, the team that wins will often be the one that can resolve clashes with more thorough and deeper warranting.

Weighing: I despise when teams read a laundry list of weighing buzzwords like "scope, magnitude, probability" without any nuanced argument comparison. Additionally, if you say "Our probability is 100% because it's happening right now" I will roll my eyes. You derive impacts from the probability of preventing the harm or creating the benefit not from the probability of the harm occurring.

-Speed: Go as fast as you want - I have not needed to clear anyone but I will if necessary.

-Theory: I have voted for theory several times this year but I have yet to see a good round with theory in it. Take that how you will.

-K: I majored in philosophy in college so I will be able to follow the material/literature but slow down/thoroughly explain the implications. I would be more than happy to judge a good K round but I will be very sad if you botch a philosopher I like. Unfortunately, the latter happens more often than the former so I would recommend being cautious about running a K in front of me unless you are dope at it.

-Tricks: Haven't judged it yet but I am mildly fascinated by the prospect.

-Use CX to resolve clash - I'm not flowing but cross can still be incredibly productive if used correctly

Parli:

Competed briefly in HS parli and extensively in college (APDA). Open to all kinds of arguments, but see above regarding my perspective on prog args. I am less familiar with Parli norms so connecting prog arguments to Parli may require more connecting and implicating.

In all debates I look first for respect. While it is ok to disagree, it is not ok to disrespect. In life if you truly want to convince others insulting them will be the quickest thing to move them away from your side.

I prefer clarity in debate over speed, though can flow it. Look to utilize all elements of the rhetorical triangle and I enjoy when CX has a clear line of thought and attack

Look for clash and make your argumentation clear with signposting.

Have fun

As a judge I am looking for the following aspects in the PF debate.

1. Plan, and flow required through out the debate 2. Clear Argumentation and Refutations. 3. Compare and weigh the impacts from both sides with conclusion.
2. I would prefer if you sent me a copy of your speeches so more I am able to follow along.
3. Here is my email: sailaks@gmail.com

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Lay judge. Did not debate in HS, some APDA experience in college.

email: ssulzinsky@wesleyan.edu

I debated PF for four years at Delbarton. I currently coach for Charlotte Latin.

my email for the chain is alexsun6804@gmail.com

Tech over truth

go as fast as you want, but if there isn't clarity then none of the content within the speech will matter.

You should weigh and collapse on whatever arguments you think are the most important within the round.

Tell me where you are on the flow (signpost) for speeches after constructive, otherwise I'm going to be really confused.

For Rebuttal

Provide warrants (reasoning and explanation) and implications to your responses
First rebuttal should address your opponent's case and you can do weighing if you want

Second rebuttal should respond to your opponent's case and you should frontline your own case.

For Summary

Collapse on the most important arguments in the round

This is the latest you can start weighing, if you start weighing for the first time in final focus I'm not going to evaluate that.

Rebuttal responses are not sticky so extend them if they are conceded

General structure for summary can be your case, weighing, their case, but you can do whatever you want in terms of the structure as long as it makes sense

Always extend or explain your case in summary

For Final Focus

Should be very similar to summary with exception to front lining and comparative weighing

Other stuff

Have cut cards ready if something is called

Extend offense in the back half, otherwise, I'll be forced to intervene or presume

I've done some stuff with theory and Ks, but don't be really trigger-happy with either. I'll do my best to evaluate them if it goes down in round.

Don't be rude or say something problematic in round. It could cost you the round.

Good luck in round

Georgetown University SFS '26 | Debated 2 years of Policy, 4 years of PF, and 2 years of Extemp Speech, Coached 1 year of PF

es1602@georgetown.edu or esun5958@gmail.com - Ask me any general paradigm questions BEFORE round and add me to any email chains!

Spreading is fine but please enunciate if you do. If I can't understand you, I will just stop flowing

Run what you are comfortable with! But... if you are going to run K/Theory your burden of proof is going to be higher, especially if not run in good faith

Tech > Truth to an extent (Don't push it)

The impact is likely not extinction

I highly value creative, unique and outside the box arguments and will generously reward speaker points for it!

Please be respectful, have fun and learn something new!

(Bonus speaker points if you manage to perform a rickroll during the round)

I am a lay judge, please be slow and speak clearly! I come from a background of tech, so I do have some knowledge on that area, but that's as far as it goes when it comes to topics in debate. Also, remember to be respectful to your opponents! I value kindness and clarity.

Hey, I’m Eli! Binghamton University (Bing TC)

email chain: afroditeoshun@gmail.com

Personal thoughts (on debate): Debate is a business. To debate is work. Yes, enjoy the activity, but also have a plan for how you interact with this space.

Do what you want, but let me not feel about your arguments how Grace Jones felt about Lady Gaga:

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/grace-jones-on-meeting-lady-gaga-i-just-didnt-feel-a-soul-2015510/

-

For PF: you can read this paradigm to understand how I engage arguments in general, but the threshold is MUCH lower (except for everything I wrote after the Theory section). Do you, have fun. I don't particularly care.

-

Speed: If I yell clear twice, I will default to what I’ve heard and understood. So, make sure you emphasize and are clear on what's important. For your sake, not mine.

-

Policy Affs- I need a clear framework for how I am to evaluate the plan (and round) beyond a reactionary response to the negative. I require a clear link story to the impact(s), and discussion of how the plan secures a resolution to the harms of the 1AC.

Prep out for T. That seems to be a lot of policy teams' weakness when Affirmative.

T/Framework: It's fine. Strategic. And honestly, they're easy outs when judging. HOWEVER, you're not gonna go far if the block is surface level on questions of YOUR wants. Get nuanced and specific. Actually implicate the Affirmative

CPs: I’m pretty neutral on them. Please just remember to have a net benefit (whether it’s internal or a DA).

DAs: Again, also pretty neutral. Just have a very clear and concise link story and impact comparison to justify why the DA outweighs (and/or turns) case. Like, why is it important? Many times I see DAs be ran and I'm just like... 'this feels like a huge FYI and I don't know why I should care (judge instruction)...'

-----

The K-(however it so comes about)

Aff: Be in discussion of the topic. If not, I need instruction as to why I should care. I feel like that's my entire paradigm: why should I care... how should I evaluate the round...?

Neg: Content and form must be aligned. I require strong judge instruction because I refuse to do any more labor than I need to. This applies to Affs as well, but I specified here as the Neg has the burden to rejoin.

POMO: I require an advocacy/alt that could easily be materialized or understood to resolve specified harms. Examples and analogies would be best.

"Identity": Win your Theory of Power and that your method best resolves (as opposed to being an 8/9-minute FYI). I'm familiar with many and live in the intersections of many (Black Fem args have my heart).

-----

Theory: Divert from only reading unspecified shells. Apply it to the actual performances and actions of the opposing team, so that I can evaluate its importance. Clear articulation (and extension) of the abuse story is key.

/

Any default to antiblackness (yes that includes misogynoir), queer/trans-phobia, ableism, etc- I will drop you and end the round. Auto-loss.

//

I live for a good ki ki, a roast, a gag. So, gag me and I will give a boost to your speaks.

///

Anything more than 5 off, you're clicking... but you're clicking down

////

I (still) flow on paper.

/////

Add on to previous: I primarily flow from speech. Clarity please.

//////

I vote fast because I am actively thinking about the round. My written RFD will be short, but the verbal RFD will be plentiful. Take notes and ask questions.

///////

I'm a 'let the debaters debate' type of person. In other words: debate is what *you* choose to make of it. My time to be in y'all's position is over. So, you all determine the tone by which y'all engage each other, I just have to submit the ballot by the end.

-

Point 1 is my boundary and only intervention

////////

I cuss, but only to emphasize certain points. Do not be surprised if I say a curse here or there, it is what it is (not applicable to Nov/JV)

Cultural Competency Certificate

Please make your contention loud and clearly.

Regular speed would be ideal.

Love debate.

hi i'm medha! i did natcirc pf for four years in high school & i'm now a college soph

in general: i get that you can use your computers and you can recite your whole speech from a doc but if i wanted to hear the word-for-word prewritten prep you (and whatever coach(es) you may have) typed up before the tournament i would just read the doc myself and eliminate the middleman (you). please for the sake of my sanity don't doc bot, and if you do, at least pretend you're not

tldr be chill, say something interesting, debate well, and tell me to call for sus evidence in ff. look at the tldr of pranav mantri's paradigm – i'm on the same vibe as him

the basics

- frontline offense & weighing in 2nd rebuttal, ideally frontline everything but i won't hate you if you don't

- defense is sticky

- paraphrasing is cool and honestly i would prefer it (only half-joking)

- i have a relatively solid understanding of progressive args, but i will say there is a very real chance i could make the wrong decision when evaluating one, so do some risk appetite self-eval before round

- i don't wanna be on the email chain & i also would rather not flow off a speech doc

- fully extend args in both summary and ff

- i can handle a considerable amount of speed (<300 wpm), just be clear

- i would consider myself tech > truth. i am willing to vote on arguments that i might personally believe to be factually untrue if they go completely uncontested; ie if your arg is that elmo is the head of mossad* and nobody argues otherwise, i'll buy it. on the flip side my threshold for responses to terrible args is obv low

specifically on evidence

I CANNOT OVERSTATE HOW LITTLE I CARE ABOUT EVIDENCE THAT NOBODY TELLS ME TO CALL FOR IN FF.

maybe this is a hot take but i quite literally have zero interest in unilaterally verifying whether your evidence is real or not. i firmly don't think it's my job as a judge to sleuth through your ev and see what's legit. even if you tell me you have evidence saying the world is unified under a secret governmental organization run fully by cows*, I WILL BUY IT IF NOBODY TELLS ME TO CALL FOR IT. this does not mean i condone bad evidence ethics. if you have a problem with your opps' evidence, PLEASE tell me to call for it and i will tank speaks and potentially the team if it's super bad. if yall spend the entirety of your speeches debating a single controversial piece of evidence but nobody tells me to call it in ff, i will drop it from my flow (in pain) and find somewhere else to vote. i do this bc 1) i am convinced it's your opps' job to police your ev ethics, not mine & 2) i think it's interventionist to let my unsolicited interpretation of your ev affect the round outcome

scenarios in which i will give auto-30 speaks (assuming you were not a jerk)

- if it’s your bubble (just lmk before the round) and you generally followed my paradigm

- if you read > 10 independent well-warranted, impacted, and weighed turns in first rebuttal

- if you're super funny

- if you bring me food or hot chocolate :)

in general i will be extremely generous w speaks as long as you're not rude bc imo speaker points can only be assigned in one of two ways: 1) to measure "how good you sound" which is variable to several factors you may not be able to control, or 2) to measure clarity/skill which is largely adjudicated by the actual decision anyway. therefore i have decided i don't care and almost everybody will be getting above 29s unless you do something egregious in round like addressing me by "judge" instead of just my name (kidding but like not really pls just call me medha)

overall

relax and have fun i just wanna judge a good round and not see anything racist/sexist/any other exclusionary -ist, so make those two things happen and you can show up in your pajamas or swear or eat mcdonalds in round or roast each other or whatever & i won't care

if you need any accommodations or have any questions, please let me know either irl before round or at my email: medha.tambe@columbia.edu

good luck & lmk if there's anything i can do to make the round less stressful/more accessible for you! also if both teams are down i am willing to scrap the debate and oversee a 2v2 chess match instead (again only half-joking)

* note: i may or may not actually believe elmo is the head of mossad and that cows run the world – if you make a convincing arg to me before/after round in favor of either or both i might possibly be inclined to give you 30 speaks

* note 2: i am unironically a really good lay judge in the sense that i am great at zoning out (if you ask me to, not in general obv lol) and then making a decision based off vibe. i have about a 97% accuracy rate in guessing decisions made by lay judges in rounds, so if you want me to judge lay or you have a lay panel and you'd rather not adapt lmk and i'll scrap the paradigm & judge lay

Jonathan Tao, jonathantao.2005@gmail.com

1st Year Undergrad, 4 years PF experience in HS on local & nat circ, quite rusty cus senior year was rather chill lolol, count me as flay-lay

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZV7xWdT

uHteXXQR2AVWKXA9ab2-yCMNW5jlgv5j_CGY/edit?usp=sharing

TLDR:

-I have MINIMAL topic knowledge, take that as you will

-Don't spread, spreading = instant minimum speaks (no, sending a speech doc doesn't work, do policy)

-If you think you're speaking too fast, you probably are

-Theory/K's/Progressive = drop unless there is a LEGITIMATE reason (See below for legitimate reason)

-Blatant and Intentional Racism, Sexism, Homophobia or other discrimination/egregious behavior (Lying, etc.) = instant drop

-Tabula Rasa, run anything that makes sense and maybe something that doesn't :D

-Google Docs & Email Chain both work, but I prefer Docs

-Have fun, don't take or make anything personal

-Any questions abt paradigm or something not on it, plz ask before round, I'll do my best to answer

------

On Substance:

-Dropped Arguments should to be mentioned to be dropped, else I'll still entertain it

-Clash is nice, interact with their arguments

-Devote some time to weighing plz

On Evidence:

-Unless something is critical to the debate I will not ask to see it, if you say I should discount it you better have a decent warrant

On Timing:

-I'll keep time, but am inclined to give grace periods, don't exploit it. I reserve the right to drop speaks and tell yall to get on with it

(If you sing a duet after FF +5 Speaks & I will be very impressed)

Send case to email chain before your speech & I might ask for extra cards if I’m curious: joytaw01@gmail.com

My wifi sucks, it'll make it a lot easier for everyone to have at least speech docs prepared for your speeches - lowkey required for rebuttal, others optional but preferred.

I debated in HS but it's been a while (class of 2020) -- I can understand tech but prefer to be treated like a flay. Semi-ok with speed in the first half of the debate if there are speech docs (still pref not going super fast) (update: I lied I am tired please don't go fast. Do at your own risk but if it's not on my flow then womp womp) + No spreading in second half of the round pls. If you do, I guess I'll still evaluate it but it will only be what I can catch + your speaks will be dropped.

Lay ----- Flay --X--Tech

Public Forum:

General update/preference on framework: I don't like oppression olympics. I don't like talking about why we should prefer one group over another group so if both teams have framing impacting out to marginalized communities, I prefer the debate to just be on the link level unless you are undeniably winning on the warrant level. Also I don't like the "link-ins bad" arg as much either, I just don't like the round being over before it starts.

Theory - pls no theory unless it's about the other team not reading a content warning. I mean if u do read theory i guess i'll judge it but i prefer substance so my threshold for responding to theory is prob a lot lower than u would like. I also don't care for disclosure theory.

Evidence - I care about evidence ethics so don't egregiously miscut cards but if you are going to run ev ethics on someone, implicate why it's more important than substance debate or why it should control my ballot. Also, I think paraphrasing is fine in PF so don't run that on me lmao.

- keep track of your own times pls

- pls stop asking if it's okay to take prep just announce to the room so we're not waiting around and time yourselves

- Be clear. I never get enough sleep so if I don't catch it, it won't be on my flow.

- Frontline if you're second rebuttal

- I don't flow crossfire. If it's interesting I'll listen, but if it's important - bring it up in speech.

- Don't be rude to the other team or I’ll drop your speaks. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A)

- YOU CAN’T EXTEND ARGUMENTS WITHOUT EXTENDING WARRANTS!!!! (e.g. Don't just tell me ending arms sales causes war - give me reasons WHY that's true and extend the impact of WHY it's important) Every time you extend an argument you should extend the link chain + impact. No blippy extensions.

- Terminal defense is not sticky (translation: Rebuttals will not be directly flowed across so bring it up in summary if you want it in final focus)

- Collapse

- Pls don’t make me intervene (write my ballot for me with weighing)

warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants warrants (warrants =/= evidence)

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh but make it comparative

in summary and final focus

pls thank u

Policy update:

I'm familiar with policy debate, as in I've judged it before, but I never competed in it. I competed in public forum so keep that in mind when you're debating. Aka:

- don't go too fast, if you are gonna spread - send me a doc

- If you're running theories or Kritiks that are not intuitive -- please EXPLAIN THEM FULLY or it will not go your way. Also if it involves smth sensitive - please include a content warning.

- Time yourselves - I might do it on the side too but I want you guys to keep track of it yourselves. Especially prep or opponent's prep.

I am a parent judge . This is my fourth year judging PF debates.

Speak clearly and articulate your points well. Please don’t spread.

I pay attention to cross-X sessions and how your are countering the opponent’s cases/arguments with proper evidences.

Please be courteous and respectful to your opponents.

Good luck!

Hello!

Please treat everyone with respect.

Get right to the point. I come prepared on the topics so you do not need to spend time explaining the basics.

I expect to see a well organized/clearly laid out argument that establishes connection to the topic with strong persuasive arguments to support your side. Back up claims with evidence where applicable. I expect to see you managing a rebuttal (fact supported if applicable) with the counterclaim clearly presented, present clear evidence and staying on the topic, not digressing.

Please speak clearly, pause where necessary (I understand you may be running against the clock but do your best to be clear in your speaking and making your point).

Provide logical arguments during rebuttals with strong logical reasoning and qualified evidence.

Avoid crazy parabolic arguments, Frontlining is good and don't make that your whole (2nd) rebuttal. Get your case strong first. Preempt a block? sure!

You being here is an achievement in itself. Be brave and Good luck to your team.

( I have judged 10 rounds in total. I am a working professional in the Financial services industry and have also worked in the Headline News Generation and Earnings analysis teams)

I've been judging PF debate for almost 3 years as a parent judge.

I usually try to learn about the debate topic before judging a debate. I like arguments that are presented in an organized manner. I like arguments with supporting numbers and questions. I like debaters talking in moderate speed and with good presentation skills.

I would like to see debaters treat each other with good manner and have fun.

I am a parent judge and I do not have experience in judging. Please speak slowly and clearly so I can understand.

Thank you,

SRT

Suryatej (Sunny) Vakkalanka

I debated PF, Congress, and Extemp in high school.

Speak clearly and slowly enough so I can understand. You can ask me at the beginning of the round if you want to check if your speaking speed is too fast. Don't go higher than 800 words for 4 mins.

Please avoid complicated jargon and don't assume I know anything about the topic.

Have fun and be kind to each other. Good luck

Congress

- Content First, Delivery Second: I prioritize the strength and originality of your arguments. A well-reasoned, evidence-backed, and innovative point will always stand out. However, delivery is also significant—clear communication and confident presentation enhance the impact of your content.

- Originality: I value new and unique arguments that bring fresh perspectives to the debate. Rehashing prior points without adding substantive new insight will hurt your ranking. Build on others' points if needed, but aim to advance the discussion meaningfully.

- Delivery Style: Speak clearly and at a pace that ensures your argument can be followed. Avoid excessive hand gestures—they can distract from your message. Controlled, purposeful gestures are fine and can emphasize key points. Make eye contact and engage with the chamber; this demonstrates confidence and helps convey your points effectively.

- Weighing Relevance and Clash: I look for speeches that are relevant to the debate and engage with the arguments presented. Effective rebuttals and comparisons carry significant weight.