hi sorry writing this super last minute so it’s really short but if you have any questions please feel free to ask before round starts!!!

i'm a sophomore at pitzer college. i did high school speech and debate for four years and competed in about 10 different events. in debate i mainly did parli and congress, but i do have experience with lay policy.

PARLI: i want to see a debate with a lot of CLASH!! i don’t want to just hear you restate the same points in every speech, and i’ll probably dock you speaker points if that’s all you do. i protect the flow. i vote completely off the flow unless there are blatant lies that are harmful to the educational aspect of parliamentary debate. use your pois!! be clear and articulate, interact with your opponents, and don’t drop arguments. also remember that you are doing SPEECH and debate so make sure to use some speech skills to convince me that your side is the right one!! i expect you guys to time yourselves and keep each other in check. i won't listen to anything past the agreed upon grace period. being overly rude to your opponents will dock you speaker points.

CONGRESS: be memorable--in your speaking style, intro+conclusion, arguments, rhetoric, etc. want speeches with clash and actual acknowledgement of what other people have said even if it's just to agree with them/build on their point. i flow general ideas/points from your speeches

i think i hit all the main points but definitely ask for clarifications if you need them

good luck :)

Hello Reader,

I'm David Brown, I'm a college student in Long Beach, CA, and I've been judging Speech and Debate Tournaments for 3 Years now (roughly 50/50 balance between Speech rounds and Debate rounds). Personally, I enjoy a quick talking speed as long as it's able to be understood. I take pretty loose notes, mostly jotting down what sticks out to me or what I think will be relevant later on in the debate. I have a dislike for debaters who in my opinion abuse the POI system. I think its a great tool for getting clarification or quick interjections, however I do not like when it is overused for the purpose of making arguments that could be made during your own speech/time.

Thank you for reading my paradigm.

Background

I live in San Diego, California where I am currently studying to attain a Bachelor's in Business Administration with an emphasis in Global Supply Chain Management as well as a Bachelor's in Political Science with an emphasis in Public Policy. I have interned in the industries of higher education advocacy, healthcare advocacy, and real estate development across the state of California.

Although I do not judge frequently, I have a competent understanding of the format of these debates and their topics.

Preferences

-Proper decorum is appreciated during the round.

-Keep the heckling to a minimum

-P.O.I.s and P.O.O.s should not be abused.

-Keep in mind that my decisions come without bias and are made by the quality of your examples, evidence, and delivery. Therefore, please prioritize the quality of your delivery.

-Organization is important.

-I appreciate it when speakers are able to keep their arguments relevant.

-I do not prefer arguments that utilize fallacies and theory.

-I do not prefer overly broad answers. I do not expect specific figures. However, I do look for answers that show your ability to think critically.

Decision Making

-I will work to ensure that my implicit biases are not used in my decision-making process.

-My decisions are influenced by your ability to sustain and reaffirm your argument throughout the debate. Therefore, if your foundation is flawed, it may be hard to receive my vote.

-I will also judge your delivery and ability to answer questions.

Other

-If you need me to time, I can. However, I do prefer you and your opponents keep track of time so that I can give all my attention to the debate.

General

Speech times are set

Signpost or I will not flow

Overviews are appreciated

IMPACT CALC PLEASE or you will not like the consequences

Policy:

tech>truth

Generally Tabula Rasa

Run your thing but you better explain and justify why it's good idea.

If you run dense philosophy keep in mind that my head is empty, explain what you are talking about and contextualize all of it to the ballot, otherwise don't complain about the decision

Speed is fine but Slow Down on voters and analytics

Little to no topic familiarity

LD:

I like it better when the debate is slow and deep as opposed to fast and blipy

Actually understanding the philosophy you talk about is generally good.

POFO:

truth>tech

Make the debate accessible, that's the point of the event. If you want to run wacky stuff go to policy

Parli:

NPDA background

Speaks:

30: No

29: Top speaker of the day

28: I got you

27: I didn't get you

26: Words were spoken?

25: No, but different

I’m a volunteer parent judge. I ask that you please keep your delivery slow and clear, in other words, no spreading. You will know that you are speaking too quickly if I put my pen down. I can’t take notes or judge what I don’t understand. I do not disclose.   My preferences: State your contentions clearly; Debaters keep their own time; I appreciate clear analysis; Quick off-time road maps are fine (emphasis on quick); A polite and respectful space is vital. 

David Chamberlain
English Teacher and Director of Forensics - Claremont High School, CA
25 years coaching forensics. I usually judge Parliamentary debate at tournaments.

In Parli debate I don't like being bogged down in meta debating. Nor do I appreciate frivolous claims of abuse. I always hope for a clean, fun and spirited debate. I trust in the framer's intent and believe the debaters should too! Logic, wit and style are rewarded.

In PF debate I certainly do not appreciate speed and believe debaters must choose positions carefully being thoughtful of the time constraints of the event. This is the peoples' debate and should be presented as such.

In LD debate I prefer a more traditional debate round with a Value + Value Criterion/Standard that center around philosophical discussions of competing moral imperatives. I understand the trend now is for LD Debaters to advocate plans. I don't know if this is good for the activity. There's already a debate format that exclusively deals with plan debate. LD is not one-person policy debate.

Speed:
I can flow speed debate, but prefer that debate be an oratorical activity.

Theory/T:
I enjoy Theory debates. I don't know that I always understand them. I do count on the debaters being able to clearly understand and articulate any theory arguments to me so that I can be comfortable with my vote. I prefer rounds to be centered on substance, but there is a place for theory. I usually default to reasonability, and don't prefer the competing interpretations model. It takes something egregious for me to vote on T.

Points:
I usually start at a 27.0 and work my way up or down from there. Usually you have to be rude or unprepared to dip below the 27.0.

Counterplans:
I don't think it makes sense to operate a counterplan unless the Aff has presented a plan. If the Aff does go with a Plan debate, then a Counterplan is probably a good strategy. If not, then I don't understand how you can counter a plan that doesn't exist. If this is the debate you want to have, try Policy debate.

Critical Arguments:
The biggest problem with these is that often debaters don't understand their own message / criticism / literature. I feel they are arguments to be run almost exclusively on the Negative, must have a clear link, and a stable alternative that is more substantial than "do nothing", "vote neg", or "examine our ontology/epistemology".

Politics / DAs:
I really enjoy Political discussions, but again, LD is probably the wrong format of debate for the "political implications" of the "plan" that result in impacts to the "status quo" to be discussed.

I was a reasonably competitive policy debater for all four years of high school and for one tournament in college. I also practiced law for nine years. Spreading is fine; I can definitely still recognize quality over nonsense mumbling. I will not tolerate disrespectful/unethical behavior, shady tactics and unnecessary aggression. The flow is determinative in that I will not make arguments for you if you didn't articulate it in the round. Proper skill in navigating the flow is something I very much appreciate and respect.

Finally, be passionate even if you don’t personally believe in what you’re arguing for; learn to be an advocate. Have fun!!

Mariel Cruz - Updated 11/10/2017

Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara Univerisity, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School

I judge mostly Parliamentary debate, but occasionally PF and LD. I used to judge policy pretty regularly when I was a policy debater. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.

Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF, but I have primarily coached parli the last few years.

Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.

Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in parli and the other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats.

K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (high school parli has fewer Ks), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.

Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I also think conditionality and topicality are important. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to.

Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in policy rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec,

Policy prep: I’m fine with paperless debate. I was a paperless debater for a while myself. I don’t time exchanging flashdrives, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.

General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.

Hi! My name is Sean. I am a parent judge and I primarily judge Parli and Impromptu. When speaking please always be respectful to your opponents and teammates. The most important things to me are clarity, communication, and organization. Rude behavior will not be tolerated, this includes hateful speech and aggressive speaking. But most importantly have fun!

I judged parli at Jack Howe, and I judged both parli and pf at La Costa. I look for arguments that are well thought out and not far reaching, though I will vote for "new" or "unusual" arguments if you can thoroughly explain your logic. I am not familiar with kritik structure and literature or theory, but if you frame it as more of a regular argument and explain its importance I might vote for it (depends on the rest of the debate material). Don't hinge the entire round on a theory argument. Please do definitions and be clear about why a counter-definition is important if you provide one.

Logic > Evidence (usually)

Be polite during your rounds, respect your opponents, and I will immediately vote against anything that is racist, homophobic, or sexist.

Hi everyone! My name is Aless Escobar ;3 (pronounced Alice)

High School Debate: @ LAMDL for Elizabeth Learning Center

Current Debate: Cal State Long Beach

P.S. Shout out to all my debate peoplezzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!! especially Dorian ( my debate partner. Their fav cat is Scottish Munchkin wink wink ), Jean (my debate child), Gavie (my debate bestie), Curtis (my debate parent), Erika (my other debate parent), and of course Israel<3 (my debate baefy) and shoutout to my debate coaches, Deven Cooper & Jaysyn Green, and all my loves in policy debate and speech at Long Beach.

Email:alessandraescobar113@gmail.com

preferences

1. I am a Tech>Truth Judge. I judge the round based on whoever I believed was more technical and clean on the flow. I love when people give me the role of the judge and ballot, and I also enjoy when people keep roadmaps consistent and true throughout the whole debate.

2. I don't like when people run arguments that are not true to their politics so please don't try it with me. For instance, if you run a personal argument while you have no connection to it, I won't enjoy the round and I am very likely to vote you down if the other team calls you out on it.

3. With that being said, please don't be problematic. This is an educational activity, and I do not tolerate any racism, homophobia, sexism, ableism, bullying, etc.

4. I love critical aff's/literature. If you run a K of any sort I will probably love it a lot more than anything traditional. BUT I can judge both fairly.

affirmatives:

1) Soft Left Aff's: love them. I don't ever see them as much so I appreciate them a lot. Please be topical though LOL.

2)Policy Aff's: Like them: be super clean on the flow. Tell me why your impacts outweigh all that good stuff.

3:K Aff's: Love them a lot. That being said I have a high standard for them. Be smart and center education in your arguments.

Kritiks:

1) again, center education in K Aff's because I do think criticizing the resolution is good/better for education, and putting forward your analysis, criticism, poems, and performances are good and better for rounds.

2)Please be engaged with your kritik (aff or neg) I want to hear the passion because if you don't care then I won't care either.

3) Kritiks on the negative are my fav! Please explain your Links and debate the perm well.

Framework:

1) I will be more likely to vote on things that criticize fairness, Framework, etc. But I love a good FW debate and impact calc from it.

2) Answering FW: Make sure not to drop fairness or TVA's or any of the important stuff because I will be more likely to vote you down on it.

Topicality:

1) I like a good T debate. That being said, make sure you don't drop anything important on T.

DA's:

1) DAs are good to run for me if you explain clear links. I enjoy clean Disad debates.

CP's:

1) Prove to me that your counter plan is the best and only way I should evaluate the round.

2) ALSO make sure you solve part of the affirmative.

Speaker Points:

1) I evaluate speaker points based on engagement and clearness in the round. I don't care too much for speed as long as you get through everything you need to/want to.

2) I don't disclose speaker points, so please don't ask.

3) I also take cross x into account when I give out my speaker points because I believe everyone involved should speak/ get a chance to say something.

Conclusion:

thank you for reading, everyone. I am also a feminist, so if you want to chit-chat with me about any feminist lit, people, or movements, then you can talk to me after the round!:3333333333

DEBATE: My preference for debate is that you make your case based on clear, cogent arguments. Elaborate whenever possible, explaining how your sources support your arguments (don't just say you "have a card" and thus assume your case is proved).

When making a technical argument, such as a dropped point, a failure to refute/counter a point, or when asking me to cross-apply a contention, always explain your reasoning. Do not just say "my points all flow through judge" or "their entire argument is discounted judge"; I will decide that based on the merits of your case.

I coach a full team, but I have more experience in Parli and IEs. I do not care about the economy so try not to use arguments that uphold the economy over, say, human lives. Please call me "judge" or "Ms. Garcia." Do not call me by my first name.

I will permit post-round questions but if folks are being disrespectful, I reserve the right to leave.

Try to win fair and square. Evidence challenges don't work on me.

World Schools: I follow the rubric.

Public Forum: I am a speech coach and this should be important to you. Rhetoric > Evidence Dumping, but I will be flowing and taking notes. Don't expect the sheer existence of your cards to win the round for you. You need to explain and analyze how the card bolsters your side of the argument. It would be impossible for me to vote for you, even if you win every argument on the "flow," if you are an incoherent speaker, so make sure to speak slow and clearly. I'm cool with paraphrasing; in fact, I encourage it. You should probably treat me like how you would treat a standard flay, or even a lay judge taking decent flows. No cussing please. I care about morality; your best bet to winning me over is on framework. Once again, I do not care about the economy. If you are blatantly rude or mean to your opponent (verbally insult them, roll your eyes at them, interrupt them during cross unnecessarily, etc.) you will lose my vote.You (the competitors) may reserve the right to share or not share the doc chain with me. I will not penalize you if your opponents choose to share the doc chain with me and you don't, or visa versa.The only Theory shell I know enough about to follow is Topicality. Try not to run any other types of Theory on me. If I'm your judge for the first few prelims, spend some time going over the basics and definitions of the resolution. After that though, try to stick to what makes your case unique.

Policy: I am looking for debaters who don't talk down to me while still clearly hashing out their arguments and plans. I have not and never will vote for disclosure theory. Disclosure is uneducational. If you are a good debater, you won't need the crutch of knowing your opponents' strategies before the round.

-Basic Paradigm: speaking skills > policymaker >stock issues

-Highly value: cx, poise, don't interrupt people, eloquent delivery

-Less Experienced with: Theory, conditional neg positions, Kritiks

Parliamentary: I honestly don't care as much about your evidence. The important thing is that your contentions be centered around common knowledge and that they are cleverly argued. Logic > evidence dumping. The only theory shell I will consider is Topicality. Other theory shells are not educational and defeat the purpose of parliamentary debate.

LD: be creative but not everything leads to nuclear war. I value rhetoric over evidence-dumping. Win me over on framework and you're golden:)

Interpretation: storytelling is most important to me, clearly defined characters are also important, please no screaming, "don't walk through your refrigerator," blocking should be clean.

Platform: puns are encouraged. Visual aids should complement your performance, not distract from it.

Spontaneous: make sure to clearly name the chosen topic multiple times and signpost frequently

Congress: proper parliamentary procedure is encouraged, don't disagree with the PO, I will notice if a particular school/team is prioritizing their own or ignoring recency

I’m a member of OCC Forensics team. I am just coming into judging competitions but am so excited.

Most important items if you have limited reading time:

PREF CHEAT SHEET (what I am a good judge for)--strategy-focused case debate, legitimated theory/topicality, resolutional/tightly linked Ks > project Ks > rhetoric-focused case debate > friv theory > other Ks not mentioned >>> the policy K shell you found on the wiki and didn't adapt to your event > phil > tricks

IN-PERSON POST-COVID: I live with people who are vulnerable to Covid-19. I do wish people would be respectful of that, but ya know. You do you.

ONLINE DEBATE: My internet quality has trouble with spreading, so if I'm adjudicating you at an online tournament and you plan to spread, please make sure we work out a signal so I can let you know if you're cutting out. NSDA Campus stability is usually slightly better than Zoom stability. You probably won't see me on Zoom because that consistently causes my audio to cut out.

Be good to each other (but you don't need to shake my hand or use speech time to thank me--I'm here because I want to be).

I will never, ever answer any variations on the question, "Do you have any preferences we should know about?" right before round, because I want the tournament to run on time, so be specific with what you want to know if something is missing here.

PREP THEFT: I hate it so much. If it takes you >30 sec to find a piece of evidence, I'm starting your prep timer. Share speech docs before the round. Reading someone's evidence AND any time you take to ask questions about it (not including time they use to answer) counts as prep. If you take more than your allotted prep time, I will decrease your speaks by one point for every 10 seconds until I get to the tournament points floor, after which you will get the L. No LD or PF round should take over 60 minutes.

***

Background

I'm currently DOF for the MVLA school district (2015-present) and Parli Director at Nueva (2023-present). My role at this point is predominantly administrative, and most of my direct coaching interactions are with novice, elementary, and middle school students, so it takes a few months for new metas and terminologies to get to me in non-parli events. PF/LD should assume I have limited contact with the topic even if it's late in the cycle. I have eight years of personal competition experience in CHSSA parliamentary debate and impromptu speaking in high school and NPDA in college, albeit for relatively casual/non-circuit teams. My own high school experience was at a small school, so I tend to be sympathetic to arguments about resource-based exclusion. A current student asked me if I was a progressive or traditional debater in high school, which wasn't vocab on my radar at that time (or, honestly, a split that really existed in HS parli in those years). I did definitively come up in the time when "This House would not go gently into that good night" was a totally normal, one-in-every-four-rounds kind of resolution. Do with that what you will.

Approach to judging

-The framework and how it is leveraged to include/exclude impacts is absolutely the most important part of the round.

-It's impossible to be a true "blank slate" judge. I will never add arguments to the flow for you or throw out arguments that I don’t like, but I do have a low tolerance for buying into blatant falsehoods, and I fully acknowledge that everyone has different, somewhat arbitrary thresholds for "buying" certain arguments. I tend to be skeptical of generic K solvency/insufficiently unique Ks.

-My personal experience with circuit LD, circuit policy, Congress, and interp speech events is minimal.

-I am emphatically NOT a games/tricks/whatever-we're-calling-it-these-days judge. Debate is an educational activity that takes place in a communal context, not a game that can be separated from sociocultural influences. Students who have public speaking abilities have unique responsibilities that constrain how they should and should not argue. I will not hesitate to penalize speaker points for rhetoric that reifies oppressive ideologies.

Speaker point ranges

Sorry, I am the exact opposite of a points fairy. I will do my best to follow point floors and ceilings issued by each tournament. 30s are reserved for a speech that is literally the best one I have seen to date. Anything above a 29 is extremely rare. I will strongly advocate to tab to allow me to go below the tournament point floor in cases of overt cruelty, physical aggression, or extremely disrespectful address toward anyone in the round.

Argument preferences

Evaluation order/methods: These are defaults. If I am presented with a different framework for assessment by either team, I will use that framework instead. In cases of a “tie” or total wash, I vote neg unless there is a textual neg advocacy flowed through, in which case I vote aff. I vote on prefiat before postfiat, with the order being K theory/framework questions, pre-fiat K implications, other theory (T, etc), post-fiat. I default to net benefits both prefiat and postfiat. I generally assume the judge is allowed to evaluate anything that happens in the round as part of the decision, which sometimes includes rhetorical artifacts about out-of-round behavior. Evaluation skews are probably a wash in a round where more than one is presented, and I assume I can evaluate the round better than a coinflip in the majority of cases.

Impacts: Have them. Terminalize them. Weigh them. I assume that death and dehumanization are the only truly terminal impacts unless you tell me otherwise. "Economy goes up" is meaningless to me without elaboration as to how it impacts actual people.

Counterplans: Pretty down for whatever here. If you want to have a solid plan/CP debate in LD or PF, far be it from me to stop you. Plan/CP debate is just a method of framing, and if we all agree to do it that way and understand the implications, it's fine.

Theory/Topicality: You need to format your theory shells in a manner that gives me a way to vote on them (ie, they possess some kind of pre- or post-fiat impact). I will listen to any kind of theory argument, but I genuinely don't enjoy theory as a strategic tool. I err neg on theory (or rather, I err toward voting to maintain my sense of "real-world" fairness/education). I will vote on RVIs in cases of genuine critical turns on theory where the PMR collapses to the turn or cases of clearly demonstrated time skew (not the possibility of skew).

Kritiks/"Progressive" Argumentation: I have a lot of feelings, so here's the rapid-fire/bullet-point version: I don't buy into the idea that Ks are inherently elitist, but I think they can be read/performed in elitist ways. I strongly believe in the K as a tool of resistance and much less so as a purely strategic choice when not tightly linked to the resolution or a specific in-round act by the opposing team. I am open to most Ks as long as they are clearly linked and/or disclosed within the first 2-3 minutes of prep. Affirmatives have a higher burden for linking to the resolution, or clearly disclosing if not. If you're not in policy, you probably shouldn't just be reading policy files. Write Ks that fit the norms of your event. If you want to read them in front of me, you shouldn’t just drop names of cards, as I am not conversant at a high level with most of the lit. Please don’t use your K to troll. Please do signpost your K. On framework, I err toward evaluating prefiat arguments first but am willing to weigh discursive implications of postfiat arguments against them. The framework debate is so underrated. If you are facing a K in front of me, you need to put in a good-faith effort to engage with it. Truly I will give you a ton of credit for a cautious and thorough line-by-line even if you don't know all that much about K structural elements. Ks that weaponize identities of students in the round and ask me to use the ballot to endorse some personal narrative or element of your identity, in my in-round and judging experience, have been 15% liberatory and 85% deeply upsetting for everyone in the round. Please don't feel compelled to out yourself to get my vote. Finally, I am pretty sure it's only possible for me to performatively embrace/reject something once, so if your alt is straight "vote to reject/embrace X," you're going to need some arguments about what repeatedly embracing/rejecting does for me. I have seen VERY few alts that don't boil down to "vote to reject/embrace X."

"New" Arguments: Anything that could count as a block/position/contention, in addition to evidence (examples, analytics, analogies, cites) not previously articulated will be considered "new" if they come out in the last speech for either side UNLESS they are made in response to a clear line of clash that has continued throughout the round (or, in parli, a new argument out of the block). I'll consider shadow extensions from the constructives that were not extended or contended in intervening speeches new as well. The only exception to this rule is for the 2N in LD, which I give substantial leeway to make points that would otherwise be considered "new." I will generally protect against new arguments to the best of my ability, but call the POI if the round is fast/complex. Voters, crystallization, impact calculus and framing are fine.

Presentation preferences

Formatting: I will follow any method of formatting as long as it is signposted, but I am most conversant with advantage/disadvantage uniqueness/link/impact format. Paragraph theory is both confusing to your opponent AND to me. Please include some kind of framing or weighing mechanism in the first speech and impact calculus, comparative weighing, or some kind of crystallization/voters in the final speeches, as that is the cleanest way for me to make a decision on the flow.

Extensions: I do like for you to strategically extend points you want to go for that the opponent has dropped. Especially in partner events, this is a good way to telegraph that you and your partner are strategically and narratively aligned. Restating your original point is not a response to a rebuttal and won't be treated as an answer unless you explain how the extension specifically interacts with the opponent's response. The point will be considered dropped if you don't engage with the substance of the counterargument.

Tag-teaming: It's fine but I won’t flow anything your partner says during your speech--you will need to fully repeat it. If it happens repeatedly, especially in a way that interrupts the flow of the speech, it may impact the speaker points of the current speaker.

Questions/Cross-ex: I will stop flowing, but CX is binding. I stop time for Points of Order (and NPDL - Points of Clarification) in parli, and you must take them unless tournament rules explicitly forbid them. Don't let them take more than 30 seconds total. I really don't enjoy when Parli debaters default to yelling "POI" without trying to get the speaker's attention in a less disruptive way first and will probably dock speaker points about it.

Speed: I tolerate spreading but don't love it. If your opponent has a high level of difficulty with your speed and makes the impacted argument that you are excluding them, I will be open to voting on that. If I cannot follow your speed, I will stop writing and put my pen down (or stop typing) and stare at you really awkwardly. I drop off precipitously in my flowing functionality above the 300 wpm zone (in person--online, you should go slower to account for internet cutouts).

Speech Docs/Card Calling: Conceptually they make me tired, but I generally want to be on chains because I think debaters sharing docs with each other increases the likelihood of them trying to leverage extremely specific case references. If you're in the type of round where evidence needs to be shared, I prefer you share all of it prior to the round beginning so we can waste as little time as possible between speeches. If I didn't hear something in the round/it confused me enough that I need to read the card, you probably didn't do a good enough job talking about it or selling it to me to deserve the win, but I'll call for cards if everyone collapses to main points that hinge on me reading them. If someone makes a claim of card misuse/misrepresentation, I'll ask for the card/speech doc as warranted by the situation and then escalate to the tournament officials if needed.

Miscellaneous: If your opponent asks for a written text of your plan/CP/K thesis/theory interp, you are expected to provide it as expeditiously as possible (e.g. in partner formats, your partner should write it down and pass it while you continue talking).

Kyle Hietala (he/him)

Program Director & Head Coach, Palo Alto High School
Speech & Debate Teacher at Tessellations School
President, National Parliamentary Debate League (NPDL)

HS: mostly trad LD, a little circuit LD, a little OO
College: APDA parli, a little BP
Coaching/judging since 2014

_________________________________________

[UPDATE for UKTOC 2025 World Schools]
I absolutely love judging World Schools and am so excited to judge your round! As a former APDA/BP debater, I know a lot about the specific argumentative and stylistic conventions and really appreciate charitable clash, comparative worlds evaluation, actor-incentive analysis, etc. I tend to think teams under-leverage principled substantives and framework, so you'd be well-advised to think about how your principled material could sufficiently win you the round. I tend to prefer all substantives be introduced in 1st speeches and then cross-applied, extended and implicated in subsequent speeches; I usually find that net new material in 2nd speeches dilutes clash, makes rounds messier, and also delays crucial weighing. You'd also be well-advised to develop more nuanced criteria than simple net benefits/societal welfare, as I tend to be quite impressed by teams who excel at the 'meta' parts of the round, as it's both a more challenging and more educational way of debating. Most of the time, I vote for the team who won the key argument(s) first and then score points after, but in a very close round, I'll probably look to style as a tiebreaker if one team was noticeably better, rather than intervening to resolve substantive arguments. Lastly, if you try any uniquely memey prog/circuit metas in front of me (e.g. spreading a non-topical kritik; reading frivolous theory shells; spamming a priori tricks; etc.), I'll vote you down with the lowest possible points.

_________________________________________

SUMMARY:
Experienced 'truthful tech' flow judge from a mostly traditional background. I'm NOT an 'anything goes' circuit judge who will disregard the academic foundations of good arguments (like logical soundness and empirical rigor) in favor of trendy, insider norms of debate as a game. As an organizational leader and educator, I care about the real-world educational benefits of forensics and want our community to strive for popularity over obscurity.

The best way I can explain how I think about truth vs. tech is in terms of how I'd evaluate something like probability weighing: if your opponent concedes an unwarranted, logically-fallacious assertion you made, I don't think it becomes "100% probable and true in the round" for you because it was dropped. Probability as a weighing mechanism isn't a measurement of technical execution to me; it's an approximation of the expected truth value of the link/impact in question based on its comparative logical and/or evidentiary basis.

The kind of 'tech' I care about is the usage of techniques such as link-level comparison, impact weighing, framework application, etc. to give me a comparatively preferable explanation of truth based on the given resolution and round. As such, I will happily vote for arguments that I personally consider to be untrue if they're well-warranted, supported by credible evidence, and most importantly – comparatively weighed under the prevailing framework.

- topical case debate > stock critical debate > necessitated theory > everything else
- you should weigh well-warranted, terminalized impacts to get my ballot
- my threshold for warranting is high relative to other experienced judges
- big fan of strategic collapses, prioritize and go all-in on what matters
- smart analytics + good cards > smart analytics > good cards
- sit/stand/handstand, whatever’s comfortable for you works for me
- always be kind & respectful, try to learn something new in every round
- typically not receptive to non-topical, clash-evasive progressive debate
- liable to hack against tricks, frivolous theory, and the most memey tech
- tend not to like race-to-extinction scenarios and am skeptical of futurism
- speed is fine, but I don't follow along in speech docs, so take it easy

LARP/POLICY:
- write and pass the plantext please
- stronger links will win you most rounds
- AFFs must prove risk of solvency to win
- NEGs must disprove/outweigh the AFF
- love smart counterplans & perms
- don't love conditionality

THEORY:
- competing interpretations > reasonability
- education > fairness > access
- RVIs are probably good
- lean DTA > DTD, but pretty persuadable
- please don't run tricks/blippy aprioris
- friv is L20, unless mutually agreed in a down round

TOPICALITY:
- please be topical; stable resolutions are good
- reasonability > competing interpretations
- pragmatics > semantics
- RVIs are probably bad
- almost always DTD > DTA

KRITIK:
- most receptive to stock Ks (e.g. capitalism, anthropocentrism, securitization)
- links should be cited examples of wrongdoing; links of omission aren’t links
- explain the K’s thesis in plain English – don’t hide behind poorly cut gibberish
- open to performance Ks, but framework will be a significant uphill battle for you
- I won’t evaluate anything that asks me to judge a student’s innate identity
- rejecting the AFF/NEG is not an alternative; the alt must advocate for something
- don't be shy about impact turns and going after alts; you don't need to left-flank

I am the Co-Advisor for our Speech and Debate team and a judge with 3 years of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to hear what you all have to say and be impressed by your knowledge, and oratory skills. Please be respectful during the round.

Here are a few things (listed in no particular order):

• Please be nice to your opponent (no bullying). Don't interrupt them during cross.
• Please time your own speeches and prep time. Don't exploit this as I will also be timing.
• Please weigh impacts! Sooner you weigh, the better. Make sure your weighing is comparative (compare your impacts with your opponent's impacts—answer the question: why do yours outweigh/why should I prioritize your impacts?)
• Please sign post and go over the flow in order (don't jump around/go back-and-forth; if you start with AFF, go over everything before moving onto NEG and vice versa).
• HOW I JUDGE: I am not a coach who is deeply entrenched in all the trending arguments. What does that mean? You should make assumptions about my understanding at your own risk. I won’t fill in steps for you based on the arguments you’re trying to make; I don’t hold preconceived notions about how arguments are evaluated by circuit judges today. What you can expect is a fresh, independent, flow-based analysis from an impartial judge regarding those arguments. In terms of my decision-making, I strive to base my choices on the flow and will reward debaters for demonstrating intelligence in their arguments. Generally, I prefer not to vote on undeveloped points. My decisions will hinge on the issues that are most thoroughly articulated on the flow. However, I am willing to vote on a clear drop of a significant argument. In cases where the round remains unresolved, I will not impose a decision on either side based on arguments or extensions that are not present in the flow, nor will I fill in gaps with my own opinions. I prefer to support the side that requires the least intervention from me as a judge, and if that's not feasible, I will favor the debater who excels in technique and delivery.

Be respectful and don't spread

I am a new judge to the speech and debate community. Please DO NOT spread, but I have been trained to understand the basics of debate, structure and rules. I did not compete in speech and debate as a student, but did participate in Model UN at a national level for four years. I am not a "tech judge" but I will flow the round.

As with any other judge, please make sure to extend your arguments, respond to your opponent's points and weigh impacts throughout the round.

Hi yall, I'm a current debate coach and I did 4 years of parli in HS. I agree with Kristina's paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=52599

Except for the speed part, I can't flow 300wpm so keep it slowish.

For T/K please also assume I don't understand the basis of the arg and explain/tagline it well

I appreciate contentions that are explained clearly and in an organized manner. Prefer fewer meaningful arguments over many less impactful ones. Take a few sentences to explain more important arguments, otherwise I might miss them. When referring back to cards made in earlier speeches, it's helpful to mention the essense of the studies rather than just the name of the author. Strongly prefer reasonable analysis over taking arguments to the extreme ending up in nuclear war.

My judging philosophy centers around No spreading, clear communication, substantive argumentation, and respectful engagement.

1. Speak clearly and at a pace that everyone can follow. Avoid speaking too fast (spreading) as it can make the debate harder to understand.

2. Focus on presenting well-reasoned arguments with evidence and analysis. Depth of analysis is more important than covering many topics superficially.

3. Maintain a respectful attitude towards everyone involved. Avoid personal attacks and create a constructive environment for exchanging ideas.

4. Engage meaningfully with your opponents' arguments and provide clear counterpoints. Constructive engagement enriches the debate.

5. Last but not the least - Stick to your speaking time and let others participate.

Overall, I evaluate debates based on argument quality, communication clarity, and participant engagement. Prioritize substance over speed and foster a respectful dialogue

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 in a static format (Word Doc or PDF - Not a real-time editable Google Doc) 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(s) 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 series of CF questions to figure out what exactly it is you are advocating.

Multiple conditional advocacies – When teams read multiple advocacies on the Aff 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 variation on "reject." But now, I think there is more wiggle room for a traditional alt under that "GPS" language. I think most alts 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 few 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'm a third year parent judge. Excited to be here! Please keep spreading to a minimum and emphasize impacts. I love an off time road map. Thank you.

Hello everyone, my name is Krystal Pacheco. I’m a 3rd year college student at Orange Coast. I’m majoring in Nursing. What I would like for you to do is to be respectful and patient to each other and to me. Give your best valid points throughout the debate, back them up with evidence, and be clear.

- I don't like speakers who rush their speech in order to convey a lot of information within a given time.

- I prioritizes arguments that are well-supported and clearly tied to the resolution.

- I give higher points to debaters who provide strong, well-researched evidence to support their contentions and clear explanations.

- I give higher points to debaters who deliver their arguments in a clear, confident, and engaging manner.

Hello! :D

I did speech and debate my entire time in high school, with a focus on IE and Congress. I've watched a lot of debate rounds over the years, but please treat me like I know absolutely nothing! I like to see well-outlined cases with clear evidence, values, contentions, transitions, etc. I'm a traditional debater - do not spread, do not offer kritiks, and do not add me to an email chain.

There will always be clashing evidence and, instead of arguing the same point back and forth, please focus on the value/value criterion! It's my favorite part of debate, so state and connect them clearly throughout your entire case. If you feel like you're mentioning it too much, that's just the way I like it :).

Also, it's never impacted my decision, but presentation is important to me! I was a speech kid, after all. Enunciate, have good volume, good posture, etc. Whatever makes you look and feel confident at the podium.

Competed in Parliamentary debate in high school. Main thing is to respect the other team. Otherwise I am happy to consider most arguments, they just need to be persuasive.

Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)

ONLINE TOURNAMENTS: PLEASE PUT ALL PLAN TEXTS (COUNTERPLANS AND ALTS ALSO) IN CHAT.

What I like:

- Clear structure & organization; If I don't know where you are on the flow, I won't flow.

- Arguments should be thoroughly impacted out. For example, improving the economy is not an impact. Why should I care if the economy is improved? Make the impacts relatable to your judge/audience.

- Meticulous refutations/rebuttal speeches - Don't drop arguments but DO flow across your arguments that your opponent drops. Have voters/reasons why I should vote for you.

- Framework - I was a Parliamentary Debater in college, so I really like clear framework (definitions, type of round, criteria on how I should view/judge the round) and I am 100% willing to entertain any and all procedurals as long as they are well-reasoned. You don't need articulated abuse. HOWEVER, I have a higher threshold for Aff Theory than Neg Theory (especially Condo).

- Plans and counterplans are amazing, please use plan text! Also, if you do delay counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, or consult counterplans, you better have an amazing Disad. and unique solvency to justify the CP.

- Round Etiquette: I don't care too much about rudeness, except when it's excessively disruptive or utilizes ad hominem attacks toward another debater in the round. For example, don't respond negatively to a POI or Point of Order 7x in a row just to throw off your opponent; I'll entertain the first few and then will shut down the rest if you do that. I won't tolerate discriminatory behavior either. Be aware that debate is a speaking AND listening sport.

-Style: I like clear-speaking but overly emotional arguments won't get to me. You are more likely to win if you use good reasoning and logic. In addition, don't yell during the debate; It doesn't make your arguments more convincing or impactful.

What I don't like:

- As I've said, I do like procedurals, but don't run multiple procedurals in a round just because you want to and didn't want to use your prep time to research the topic. I am not a fan of spec arguments.

- Let's talk about Kritiks: Rule 1, make sure your K somehow links to SOMETHING in the round; No links, no ballot. Rule 2, I am cool with jargon, but accessibility is more important to me; If the other team cannot comprehend your case just because you are overusing buzzwords and high-level jargon, I won't be pleased. Rule 3, As much as I appreciate hearing people's personal stories and experiences, I don't think they have a place in competitive debate. I have seen on many occasions how quickly this gets out of control and how hurt/triggered people can get when they feel like their narrative is commodified for the sake of a W on a ballot.

- Speed: I can flow as fast as you can speak, however I AM all about ACCESSIBILITY. If your opponents ask you to slow down, you should. You don't win a debate by being the fastest.

- New Arguments in Rebuttals: I don't like them, but will entertain them if your opponent doesn't call you out.

- Don't lie to me: I'm a tabula rasa (blank slate) up until you actively gaslight the other team with claims/"facts" that are verifiably false. For example, don't tell me that Electromagnetic Pulse Bombs (EMPs) are going to kill 90% of people on the Earth. Obviously it is on your opponent to call you out, but if you continuously insist on something ridiculous, it will hurt you.

- Don't drop arguments: If you want to kick something, first ask yourself if it's something you've committed to heavily in prior speeches. Also, let me know verbatim that you are kicking it, otherwise I'll flow it as a drop.

Speech

I competed in Lim. Prep. events when I was a competitor, so that's where my expertise lies. However, I have coached students in all types of events.

Extemp: Do your best to answer the question exactly as it is asked, don't just talk about the general subject matter. Make sure your evidence is up to date and credible.

Impromptu: Once again, do your best to respond to the quotation to the best of your ability, don't just talk about your favorite "canned" examples. I score higher for better interpretations than interesting examples.

Platform Speeches: These types of speeches are long and are tough to listen to unless the presenter makes them interesting. Make it interesting; use humor, emotion, etc. Have a full understanding of your topic and use quality evidence.

Oral Interp. Events: I don't have very much experience in this event, but what I care most about is the theme the piece is linked to and the purpose it serves. I don't view OI's as purely entertainment, they should have a goal in mind for what they want to communicate. In addition, graphic portrayals of violence are disturbing to me; Please don't choose pieces directly related to domestic/sexual violence, I can't handle them and I won't be able to judge you fairly.

NON-PARLI SPECIFICS (PF, LD, CX, etc.):

Do:

-Include a value/criteria

-Share all cards BEFORE your individual speech (share as a google doc link or using the online file share function)

-Communicate when you are using prep time

DO NOT:

-Get overly aggressive during Cross-Fire (please allow both sides to ask questions)

-Present a 100% read/memorized rebuttal, summary or final focus speech (please interact with the other team’s case substantively)

I will vote for the team that best upholds their side’s burden and their value/criteria. In the absence of a weighing mechanism, I will default to util./net benefits.

EMAIL: krietveld0@gmail.com

There is no grace time in parliamentary debate!! I stop flowing when your speech time has ended.

When I judge in person, I'm usually waking up like 4 hours earlier than normal, so I tend to yawn a lot during debates. Sorry if it's distracting, and I promise I am not getting bored or falling asleep!

General

These are all ultimately preferences. You should debate the way you want to debate.

For online debate: put texts in the chat for every advocacy/ROTB/interp. Texts are binding.

I'm okay with speed and will slow/clear you if necessary. If you don't slow for your opponents, I will drop you.

I will protect in the PMR but call the POO.

Please give content warnings as applicable. The more the merrier.

A safe debate is my primary consideration as a judge. Do not misgender your opponents. I will not hesitate to intervene against any rhetorically violent arguments.

If any debater requests it, I will stop a round and escalate the situation to Tab, tournament equity, and your coaches. I will also do this in the absence of a request if I feel like something unsafe has occurred and it is beyond my jurisdiction/capacity to deal with it.

Case

Weigh, interact with your opponent's arguments, and signpost!! I prefer when your weighing is contextualized to the argument you want me to vote on, rather than across-the-board generalizations of preferring probability or magnitude. Unwarranted links have zero probability even if they are conceded. Cross-applications need to be contextualized to the new argument.

All types of counterplans are game and so is counterplan theory. Perms are a test of competition. I have no idea what a neg perm is, so if you read one, you have to both justify why the negative is entitled to a perm and also what a neg perm means in the context of aff/neg burdens.

I would prefer it if you cited your sources unless the tournament explicitly prohibits you from doing so. If there is an evidence challenge that affects my ballot, I will vote before I check your evidence, and if I find intentional evidence fabrication, I will communicate that information to tab.

Theory/Topicality

Theory is cool! Please have a clear interpretation and have a text ready. I am happy to vote on whatever layering claims you make regarding theory vs. Ks. In the absence of layering, I will default to theory a priori.

I won't vote on theory shells that police the clothing, physical presentation, or camera usage (for online debate) of debaters. I will evaluate neg K's bad theory, disclosure, and speed theory as objectively as possible, but I don't really like these arguments and probably hack against them. Aff K's bad/T-USfg is fine. I will drop you for reading disclosure in the form of consent/FPIC theory. I'll vote on all other theory shells.

I default to competing interpretations, potential abuse > proven abuse, and drop the argument. To vote for reasonability, I need a clear brightline on what is reasonable. I am neutral on fairness vs. education. I'm neutral on RVIs, but I'll vote for them if you win them. I am good with conditional advocacies, and also good with hearing conditionality theory.

Kritiks

KvK is currently my favorite type of debate to judge. Rejecting the resolution, performance Ks, and framework theory are all fine with me. Please read a role of the ballot. If you are interested in learning more about K debate, please email me and I will send you any resources/answer any questions you may have.

Tech v. Truth

I default to tech over truth, but I probably lean towards truth more than your average tech judge. I'm open to arguments that say I should weigh truth over tech and disregard the flow when technical debate is sidelining disadvantaged teams. I think while technical debate can be a tool for combatting oppression in the debate space, skill at technical debate is definitely correlated with class, income, and whiteness. As such, I'm willing to hear arguments that ask me to devalue the flow in favor of solving a form of violence that has occurred in the round as a result of technical debate.

Miscellaneous

For speaker points, I give 27s as a baseline. I won't go below this unless you are violent or exclusionary. Please answer 1-2 POIs if there isn't flex.

My resting face and my frowning face are the same, and I have very expressive nonverbals– I recognize that this combo can be intimidating/confusing and I strongly urge you not to use my nonverbals as indicators of anything. I promise I don't hate you or your arguments, it's just my face!

Good luck :^)

UPDATED 10/12/2024 Bargain Belt Update

All this is pretty old. I'll listen to anything. I'm good with Ks, Ts, theory and anything you want to run. Add me to the email chain: sarahsherwood22@gmail.com

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 18 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning

Hello Debaters

I appreciate when you start the debate with an Off -time road map.

I also request you speak at a normal pace (no spreading), and be respectful to one another.

Good Luck!

For all events:

1. Absolutely no spreading.
2. Treat your opponent with respect.
3. Have fun!

Hi everyone ,

I have judged LD, Public Forum, and Parliamentary for 7 years now.

My only two requirements are to be respectful, and please don't spread (talk extremely fast).

Thanks