Hello, I am a parent judge from California.

I typically judge public forum, but can judge LD.

Mainly try to talk slower so I can keep up, be respectful and nice and try your best!

Truth > Tech, no theory debate.

Thank you, keep it up everyone!

my email address is:

Talmstedt@fjuhsd.org

Please include me on email evidence chains and case sharing.

For WSD, I will focus more on the Style aspect. WSD, I feel, is not a regular debate round, but a way to promote and share your ideas. If a team starts talking about why they won and not showing me, and the other team is showing me, I'll lean towards the other. If you're making me laugh, you are doing something right. I've judged tons of speech, PF, LD, and Policy, so I can handle anything ya got.

I am a head coach of a Speech and Debate Team. When it comes to PF & LD, I am lay judge but can understand tech-type jargon. I do not flow, but take shorthand notes. If you give me a verbal outline, I can track it.

These are do’s and Don’t for me judging your round:

• Please do not use ‘K’’s to win your round, or run anything progressive, as you probably won’t win.

• I appreciate off time road maps. Sign Posting is also very helpful for me to track your arguments

• I will defer to the tournament organizers as to disclosure at the end of the round. If there are no instructions, I will disclose at the end of the round

• A disrespectful team will most often lose the round

• Trigger warnings are appreciated, but must be followed if asked to

• I default to most lives affected/saved if no other framework is presented

• Please do not spread, I asked nicely.

• Make link chains as clear as possible, with clear warranting, especially when they are lengthy

• Evidence is important. Accurate evidence is even better. Valuable evidence is best. This means if your opponent is using faulty or poor evidence call them out on it. Thus, ask for evidence.

• As a lay judge, crossfire allows me to see the caliber of each team. Respectful, meaningful, and purposeful crossfire will help me decide the victor of the round.

• Post round questions are helpful for my growth as a judge, so please ask for reasoning. However, your obligation is to beat your opponent, not argue with the judge, so clarifying questions will be entertained, but attempts to change my mind will not.

UPDATED 02/20/2024

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

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

GENERAL COMMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preferences that do not normally factor into my decision:

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

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

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

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

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE

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

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

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

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

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

CONGRESS

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

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

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

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

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

Add me to the email chain and send round docs rahul.bindlish71@gmail.com
Occupation: IT Services

School Affiliations: DVHS

Years of Judging/Event Types: Judged PF for 3 years

How will you award speaker points to the debaters? Fluency of speech, arguments made supporting your position, data provided supporting your arguments, how did you defend the other teams objections, how did you challenge the other teams position.

What sorts of things help you to make a decision at the end of the debate? Logical reasoning, supporting data, clarity of thought and clear articulation.

Do you take a lot of notes or flow the debate? I take notes by speaker and team. I tend to keep tab of main arguments made for and against the topic and try to decide which ones I finally believed in based on the arguments and data presented during the debate.

Rank each using the following rubric: 1 - not at all 5-somewhat 10- weighed heavily

Clothing/Appearance: 1; Use of Evidence: 10; Real World Impacts: 8; Cross Examination: 10; Debate skill over truthful arguments: 3

Public Forum

Emphasize logic and flow, facts & evidences; value respect and professionalism. Manner, behavior and sincerity matters.

Judged in SCU & North Bay.

Background: Hello! My name is Nikhita (she/they), a former PF debater in high school and a parliamentary debater (yay apda) throughout college for a total of 8 years of experience. Additionally, I competed in domestic and international extemporaneous speaking. Throughout my time in debate I also judged numerous times for LD, PF, Policy, and many speech events. I work full time now whilst studying to get into law school. Feel free to contact me at nikhitac@gmail.com with any questions before or after rounds. You can also email me with any accommodation requests or if you feel uncomfortable in a round for any reason.

Personal Notes:

Be cordial, speaks will be docked if you're rude/problematic, with more severe punishment if you resort to things like racism/homophobia/ableism/etc.

Please give appropriate content warnings if you are going to discuss heavy topics in round; I am open to all content but a cw can go a long way for making sure everyone is comfortable. Follow all of the equity rules!

Time yourself and your opponents; I trust you all to take care of that yourself in a polite manner (i.e., a couple seconds of grace and all that).

Warrant your arguments! Even with evidence, I value logical reasoning and thought-out arguments. Additionally, I value weighing arguments throughout the round; don't just bring up a dropped argument at the very end and expect to win due to it. Impact calc is key! Tell me how to vote and why. Tell me what arguments are important and why, otherwise you leave only me to make these decisions for you. Keep the debate and your flow clean, and you'll have an easier time winning my ballot.

Minimize paraphrasing your evidence. I prefer strong, solid quotes instead of paraphrasing that overstates or ignores the evidence's caveats. Any deception involved in evidence will cause anywhere from a loss in speaks to an overall loss of the round depending on the severity.

Moderate speed is fine, but please avoid spreading or you risk me not catching key parts of your case. Speak clearly! Please signpost; I'm okay with brief, off time road maps. Slow down for your taglines, author names and dates, and other important facets. Speaks will be awarded based on confidence, appropriate volume & pace, sportsmanship, and overall behavior.

Obviously this can't capture my entire judging philosophy and I'm definitely forgetting things, but don't be scared to ask me any questions before the round. Have fun in the round (and make it fun for me)!

Email: fangyandu@yahoo.com

I am a lay judge with limited knowledge of the debate topics. Please speak clearly and at a reasonable rate of speed.

I like well organized arguments with supporting citations and evidences. Please have the full original cards available to share in case they are requested.

Hello

My name is Parrish Eyre. I own a small Management Consulting firm specializing in Business and IT Process reengineering. I have no formal training in debate but absolutely love it and have the greatest amount of respect for those that are willing to step up the the mic and articulate an argument.

From an experience perspective I spent 4 years as a University student grade/infraction appeal judge and a traffic court judge.

If you read nothing else: be respectful to one another. You will not win if you are not kind.

For LD Sections Debate:

I am not an expert in LD. Take it easy, and treat me as a lay judge here. A lot of the same points mentioned below about PF apply to a typical LD round in some form. Debate definitions first, and explain everything.

Thoughts: I believe every argument you make must be founded on evidence and research. Arguments with no sources won't be weighed. If a team introduces evidence that is found to be outright falsified, the round ends in a loss for that team and a discussion between myself and their coach. It is every competitor's responsibility to ensure your teammates and your opponents are properly using evidence.

I judge based on the evidence and arguments presented in the round. That means if your opponents argue that the sky is green, and you don't question them or their evidence, then the sky is green.

Things I like in debate:

-Clear frameworks. This is how I will vote, and usually means defining key parts of the resolution and presenting a weighing mechanism.
-Weighed impacts. How do your impacts stack up against your opponents'? Tell me explicitly, especially in summary and final focus.
-Organized arguments. Signpost. I can better keep track of organized arguments, helping you win.
-Critical thinking. Point out logical inconsistencies, make sure your opponents aren't misrepresenting evidence, etc.
-Unique arguments. As long as your evidence and logic are solid, these can be fun. Make sure they're in the scope of the resolution.

Things I don't like in debate:

-Non-topical arguments. Often called "Kritics" or "K's," these do not fly with me. You have a resolution, debate it.
-Shot-gunning evidence. One good source is always worth more than a dozen poor sources.
-Argument spreading. “Judge, they dropped our third and tenth contention, so you must vote for us.” I will not.
-Talking too fast. Slow down. There is no need to yell. If I can actually write down everything you say you'll be better off.
-New arguments after rebuttals. I may consider new evidence if you are asked for it, but brand-new arguments won't be considered.
-Falsifying or supported evidence.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have before or after the round. We are here to grow and learn new skills.

Lastly, good luck and have fun :)

Lay parent judge. Seventh year of judging. I appreciate well organized presentations, good energy, and sporting behavior.

DEBATE: I will flow for debate categories. Debaters, PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD. While there may be contexts where speed-talking is encouraged, I value understanding your arguments and hearing your contentions and evidence. If you spread, I may not appreciate all of your amazing research and work, which may affect my scoring decisions. Please avoid over-reliance on debate-specific jargon where you can convey the same concepts with non-technical terms. Effective argumentation rests on the premise that your audience can understand you and is provoked to think about your points.

SPEECH: I appreciate humor, bringing performance and drama into speech categories, but most of all, a sense that you have prepared and are ready to do your best. Before you get started… breathe and smile! Good luck!

Hey everyone I’m Ms.Stacy, the PF coach from Leland. Here is the paradigm for PF specifically:

Put me on the chain: shaky1832@yahoo.com

Treat me as a lay (less jargon, slower speed, etc.) I did not compete or coach tech-debate a lot so I am still working on understanding the intricacies of PF. Traditional speaking style/content delivery does weigh into my overall perception of the round, make of this what you will. Be fluent and seem passionate about what you are talking about and you will do great!

That being said, I can tell when a response is new. New responses that were not in rebuttal or summary will not be evaluated. I want to understand the response as you are giving it, not 2 speeches later. As much as I try to be tech>truth, bad response quality, and explanation does still hurt. The same thing goes for extensions, which take more time than a 5-second speed run in the back half. If I do not understand the argument, I will not vote on it.

Keep advocacies topical. I do not trust myself to evaluate any sort of pre-fiat offense whether it be theory, kritiks, or whatever else. The most I could do is evaluate an evidence IVI if the cut is really bad.

Please weigh. A lot of the time I have a really hard time making the “right” decision if I have to evaluate multiple lines of offense with no comparative weighing. If you start the weighing strong and early, it makes the round much easier to evaluate.

Most importantly, remember to have fun!

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.

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

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

TL;DR

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

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

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

Cross:

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

Rebuttal:

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

Summary:

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

Final Focus:

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

———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———

Voting:

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

Evidence:

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

Email Chains:

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

Prep Time:

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

Speech Times:

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

Speed:

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

Speaks:

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

Postrounding:

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

Trigger Warnings:

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

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

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

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

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

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

Kritiks:

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

Tricks:

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

Everything Else:

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

TKO:

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

My name is Sivaji Gottumukkala, I am a lay judge.

I do not have much knowledge on the topic. Few important things that I look for when grading:

• No Spreading. If I cannot understand you then I probably won’t vote for you
• No Interrupting other team.
• Be courteous to opponents.
• Please frontline your arguments

I am a flay judge, more so on the flow side. Currently a college freshman judging for Fairmont. I’ve done PF for 6 years and I’ve qualified to TOC three times and went 4-3 twice.

My microphone on my headphones aren't working so I will be speaking through the chat during the round.

Please send case and rebuttal cards through an email chain before the round for the sake of time.

My email is rohunx12@gmail.com

Speed is fine with me as long as you are clear and send a speech doc.

To win my ballot, you just need to win one contention or turn (aka offense) and then also explain to me why that matters more than your opponent's offense (aka weighing).

To win your offense, you must extend each step of the logical link chain and the impact. I don’t really care about card names as long as the warrant is extended unless the card name matters in the round. You only need to extend in summary and final focus (aka the back half).

However, if you do not extend a key link in the offense you go for, I won’t automatically drop your argument unless it is the 2nd final focus. Your opponents must point out that mistake and use it as a response (aka defense). That means that if a team only talks about their contention by name and doesn’t extend it properly, they can get away with that if the other team doesn’t point it out. I’m only a blank slate after all.

To win your offense, you must also respond to your opponent’s responses (aka frontline). I prefer if the responses are responded to immediately in the next speech, which means 2nd rebuttal should ideally frontline the offense they intend on going for in the back half. It’s not a must, but it will get you extra speaks and a competitive advantage in the round for the reason below:

Defense is sticky from 1st rebuttal to 1st final focus. In other words, the 1st summary does not need to extend defense from the 1st rebuttal if it is not responded to in the 2nd rebuttal. Otherwise, defense that you want on my ballot must be extended and also defended from your opponent’s responses to it (aka backlining)

No fancy rules for weighing, just make sure you do it. If both teams do it, make sure you explain why your weighing mechanism matters more than theirs. Debate is comparative at the end of the day. My whole job as a judge is to compare y’all’s sides with my own analysis, so why not do that for me and write my ballot?

Finally, if you want to run prog like theory and Ks, I’m completely open to it. I’ve ran theory before and I generally believe that disclosing is good and paraphrasing is bad.

HOWEVER if the round has multiple theory shells (excluding the counterinterp of course) OR if the round is a K round, then you’ll have to treat me like a lay and go slow. I have a minimal understanding of K’s and I have found that for me, the round becomes hard to follow if there are multiple theory shells presented on both sides so you just gotta dumb the round down for me.

If the debate is substance though then go as tech as you want. Use defense to kick out of offense, go for a double turn, do whatever.

My name is Holden. I’m a college student. I did PF/Parli VERY briefly freshman year of high school, so I know basic PF structure and terminology, but otherwise, treat me like a lay judge.

Read content warnings for anything that might need it and have an extra case if someone opts out.

To save time, please try and set up ev exchange before the round starts.

Be respectful. I'm fine with rounds being casual, but everyone in the round should be respected.

I'll try my best to take notes so clearly signpost for me. Speak clearly and slowly so I can follow.

Also, please weigh your impact and really explain them to me.

I vote on truth over tech on arguments. Clear and concise arguments will win.

I do flow the case. Be clear on warranting/linking and have credible evidence.

Use clear structure and signposting in your speeches. Best to number your contentions for clarity (i.e. contention 1a, contention 1b, 2a, 2b, etc.)

Don't spread: if you talk so fast that I can't understand you, you will lose.

Hello! I have judged several PF rounds and know the general layout of the round, and have some preferences.

1. Please be respectful towards your teammates and judges - I do not and will not tolerate disrespect towards anyone in a round. Please have manners when speaking to opponents and refrain from acting aggressively or rudely.
2. Please make sure you're speaking at a volume that is audible for both your opponents and judges. Try not to mumble, especially if you're spreading. Do not purposefully speak low to hurt your opponents. If you are going to spread, do it mindfully. If I cannot understand you, I cannot follow your argument, and if you know you're going to go very fast, offer to share cases.
3. I judge based on your ability to defend your points. Being able to successfully make me believe that your points are stronger and better than your opponents will lead to you winning my ballot.

But most importantly, don't forget to have fun!

I am a lay judge. Please don’t spread too much, especially if it will leave you stumbling over your words. Minimize your jargon. I will judge by the strength and logic of your arguments, and by who has the most arguments standing at the end.

I am a parent judge. Be concise and clear. If I cannot understand your points I will drop the ballot. If you spread, run K, or run theory I will drop the ballot. Good luck!

I appreciate when students are clear and concise in rounds. I need to be able to understand what is being said in the round in order to flow and subsequently judge. Outline your voters issues and impacts in your case. Be kind to one another, this is an educational and learning opportunity for everyone.

Archbishop Mitty '18

UC Berkeley '22

USC Gould Law '25

About me

I did PF in high school pretty competitively. If you have any other questions for me just ask before the round!

*PLEASE MAKE EVIDENCE EXCHANGES QUICK AND ONLY DISPUTE EVIDENCE IN SPEECHES*

PLEASE WEIGH.

preflow before round please.

*Note on prep time: if you are prepping while you are waiting for a card, you need to run prep.

Technicalities

• I will not evaluate arguments without warrants! Extending warrants in summary and final focus is very necessary. It's not enough to say "extend x author or x statistic" without the warrant.
• For me to vote on an argument please 1) Warrant it and 2) Weigh it.
• First Summary: It is not necessary to extend defensive arguments in first summary. The exception is if they frontline said arguments in second rebuttal, in which case you should respond to the frontlines.
• Second Summary: All defensive arguments you extend in final focus must be in second summary or I will not weigh them.
• Everything in final focus should be in summary. Two exceptions. 1) Again, first final focus can extend defense that was not responded to in the second rebuttal. *That does NOT mean first FF can make NEW analysis/weighing about that defense! 2) First final focus can frontline a response that was not brought up until the 2nd summary.
• Second rebuttal should spend some amount of time answering first rebuttal. While you should prioritize answering case, some response toward first rebuttal is ideal.
• Weighing: Start weighing in summary, including first summary. Don't just weigh impacts. Link-level weighing is just as or even more important. Collapsing in summary and final focus is crucial.
• Impacts: Always terminalize your impacts. If possible, I prefer concrete numbers that directly relate to your argument (1000 lives). This makes it easier to weigh as well. If you are extending/weighing scalar impacts (i.e. x increases y by 20%) try to contextualize that percentage.

Evidence

• Evidence ethics in debate and especially in PF are a big problem in my opinion. I strongly prefer quoting sources, but if you are paraphrasing make sure it does not misconstrue the intent of the author.
• Have your evidence readily available. If you cannot locate a card within a few minutes, I will strike it.
• I’ll call for evidence after the round has ended in two scenarios: 1. I was explicitly told to call for a card in a speech or 2. A card was consistently disputed in the round.
• If upon examination, there is legitimate abuse of evidence, I am automatically dropping you and docking speaker points.

Speaking

• My average is ~28.5. I assign speaker points based on strategic decision-making in round.
• I’m fine with speed, but no spreading. That being said, clarity precludes speed; only go as fast as you can while speaking in a comprehensible manner.
• Signpost clearly, especially in summary and final focus.
• You will lose points if you are overly aggressive or rude.

Ks/Theory: I honestly do not have much experience with Ks and theory, so I would really prefer you not run it because I will have no idea how to evaluate it.

hi! i debated pf and parli for princeton high school (2018-22). i now coach for flintridge and compete in british parli for usc

lmk if you have any questions on facebook or email me at liuanna@usc.edu

tldr normal flow judge who is lazy and doesn't like intervening

my preferences:

honestly, analytics/logic > evidence. i'm super disinclined to vote off an arg if i don't understand it even if you throw a billion stats at me. i'll probably believe anything if it's warranted enough though. this also means i have a really high threshold for extensions in summary & ff so always overexplain please

please stay in the 150-200 wpm range or send a speech doc (but this will make me really sad i hate flowing off speech docs just read a shorter case pleaseee). i can flow faster if im forced but then i might miss things which will make us both sad. also i don't flow author/source names so when u extend don't just say "extend amadeo" tell me what amadeo said

bare minimum for second rebuttal is responding to turns, you also should frontline anything you want to go for (yay sticky defense)

i don't listen to cross, i won't look at cards unless you tell me i have to, i'm not gonna time anything so y'all keep track, idc what you wear to round

if you have questions about my decision please ask me! i'm always down to help clear anything up

don't be any of the -ists, if you do i drop you with the lowest speaks possible

progressive args:

disclaimer: i was an east coast pf debater 2 years ago who only ran trad, run at your own risk

i am willing to buy anything but ONLY IF

1- you warrant everything (i mean literally everything, from your links or standards to especially rotb!!) and you warrant it well, i have a very high threshold for this

2- you speak slow because if i have to flow off of a speech doc because you want to read 14 tricks instead of 7 i will actually start sobbing right there on the spot and then not be able to flow due to the tears blurring my vision

basically explain it to me like i'm a lay judge

I believe that debate should be used to strengthen ones ability to construct, and effectively relay, a point of view by using clearly explained and expressed evidence for support. What one learns from participating in debate can be used in our everyday social interactions. With that said, there is no use for spreading or speaking like an auctioneer in the real world, such as a debate with family and/or friends or Congress. Competitors should be aware that there is a person (most likely not a professional debator) judging their case. That judge has to listen to the points given, process the weight of the arguements, and write down those points in real time. I believe that a few well thought out arguements are more powerful than rhetorically vomiting arguements at a rapid pace.

As a judge I am looking for a well structured, thought out, and delivered case, especially when judging a finals round. During a final round both teams will most likely have equally strong cases. Sometimes how the case was presented, and which team gave me what I needed the way I needed can be what tilts decision.

Truth > tech.

I like stock cases argued and explained well. Cross ex totally matters, in fact I have voted on convincing, strategic CX performances in many a bid round. Summaries should weigh. Call it "old tymey" PF.

If you are constantly thinking throughout the round (not just blindly reading cards) I will probably vote for you. Strike me if you have a super long link chain, do not address the topic, or talk super fast. Humor is great.

Biography:

I did too much ofPF, Congress, and Extemp. Currently a law school student and PF varsity coach for MVLA.

Judging Philosophy: Tech > truth

I'm down for anything as long as it's warranted and linked properly. Please do impact analysis/weighing to make my life easier. The more messy a round is, the more likely my flow becomes the wild west. Strike me if you don't want to do terminal link work.

Growing List of Pet Peeves:

• Even tho I'm tech over truth, if you break evidence ethics, either drop the card or it's an auto-drop from me. I don't really care about paraphrasing but will evaluate paraphrasing theory.
• Defense is not sticky.
• Don't make evidence calls longer than they should be.
• I'm good with speed and if I can't keep up, I'll say "clear".
• Add me to the email chain. I'll disclose my email in round.
• I make faces, I'm sorry.
• In varsity: I don't time because it slows my flow, but please flag overtime. In JV/Novice: I will time and give hand signals if needed!
• I like a spicy debate with clash so please try your best to create clash.
• I half (don't really) listen to crossfire so if it's important, bring it up in speech.
• Please be kind to your opponents.
• Don't try to extend everything in summary and final focus, collapsing is your friend. If you go for everything and all your extensions and links are surface level, I WILL NOT give you access to your impacts/args.
• Please have a basic level of round etiquette. If you do not know what this is, please ask me or I will heavily dock speaks.
• Good theory and Ks are aight. Bad/poorly done theory/Ks are an auto drop. TW stuff is my least favorite to evaluate (this means don't run it).
• To get access to your impacts -> you need to provide me the terminal link and it's not enough to be a surface-level link/card read.
• Using debate language inaccurately is cringe/a speaks dock.
• I usually disclose right away and if I don't, that means the round was messy and I have to clean up the flow (that's a bad sign).

---PERSONAL INFO---

I did PF + Extemp. I mostly just like flowing stock, but I'll try to accept conversational Theory and Kritiks that I can understand; I prefer clean rhetoric over spread jargon unless you read me an interp that can convince me otherwise.

In my paradigm, a good debater is somebody that can make it abundantly CLEAR why they won. Think about why you started debate and why you have continued to do it; this is a learning experience! Stay respectful and try new things.

--- DEBATE ---

Debaters, I will assume you know what you're doing. Make the structure of your argument clear and meaningful IN your speech. Remember that debate is more than fast talking and dubious leaps in logic. Debate is communication. While on that topic, a note on speed:

CONVERSATIONAL ONLY, PLEASE.

Generally, I don't vote for cases I don't understand. If you want my ballot, practice brevity. Jargon's fine. Contention taglines should be slow enough for me to copy down exactly.

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

Paradigm.

Speaks: Debate in good faith. Attitude, respect, and accuracy count. I give better speaks in better rounds. Unless there is a serious offense committed in round, I won't go below 25. If there is something that I see, I will let you know explicitly. If you see something, I expect you to kritik or address it in round.

Theory: Topicality specifically first, since it's come up the most. On the defense, the topicality of your case should be obvious. Anything on the edge of topicality needs to be preemptively justified in the constructive to convince me that it is actually relevant. On the offense, again, I need an obvious violation and a substantially better interpretation to buy a topicality argument. This applies to all theory: give me the shortest version of your full shell.

Kritikal: ONLY use it if necessary. I will judge you not only on your choice of K, but execution, clarity and structure before considering it as an integral part of the round. I want an obvious link and a full internal link to your impact. Explain the alternative and role clearly and slowly. Please don't spread these, especially the more complex ones; I won't follow.

Counter-plan: Do it only when there is a plan that precedes your counter-plan. Don't run counter-plans against traditional debaters.

Tricks: I appreciate a good trick. Remain respectful of the format.

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

With the technical stuff out of the way, above all I want to make sure everyone enjoys the round thoroughly. Have fun with your cases; I am always interested to hear unorthodox methods! Happy Debating!

I am an experienced lay judge. I am averse to spreading, but will not dock you if you spread. I can only judge on what I can understand and flow. Simple, succinct and deliberate is the winning formula for me.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Hello!

I am currently an assistant coach for Flintridge Preparatory, The Westridge, and Speech and Debate institute (SDI). I am also a former Public Forum Debater as well as Speaker in Dec, HI, DI, and Impromptu where I competed for 5 years.

PF

I believe in keeping Public forum debate in a format that is, as initially intended, in a format that is accessible to the public. That being said, rounds can still be techy and competitive as long as they are done with clarity and respectfully. I am not a huge fan of speed in PF but if your style had moderate speech that is fine, within reason (do not spread), as long as you maintain understandability and enunciate you are golden. I wouldn’t consider myself a tech judge but definitely not a lay judge either. I will be flowing and comprehensively listening, therefore make sure to your contentions and rebuttals flow through otherwise they will be dropped. Remember, state your arguments clearly (have clear claims and links) and DON’T FORGET TO WEIGH.

*Speaks: BE RESPECTFUL, this is an educational learning environment therefore it is not a space for yelling (passionate speaking is different), being rude to opponents, or underhanded comments. If I am distracted away from listening to content because of overly aggressive debating it may cost you the round. (Don’t Spread)

K’s

I am open to hearing these arguments as long as they can be justified and can clearly link in. I would highly suggest you only run K’s you are passionate about. (I will only mark you down if you are using these arguments in an abusive manner)

Speech:

Extensive experience competing in HI and DI, and judging in all forms of IE.

Extemp/IMP: Please have a thesis statement. Don't simply answer your question "Yes/No", and then jump to your points. I need to hear WHY you are answering Yes/No in a well-crafted thesis statement.

Oratory/Advocacy/INFO: You're here to teach! Teach me!

Interp: There is a difference between true interpretation and simply making somebody laugh (HI) or cry (DI). Good "Interpers" know the difference.

Debate:

***** PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO ME *****

***** IF YOU TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS WITH DISRESPECT, SPEAKER POINTS (AND PERHAPS RFD) WILL BE IMPACTED SEVERELY *****

***** YOU ARE HERE TO ATTACK ARGUMENTS, NOT PEOPLE *****

I am experienced as a competitor in Policy and Lincoln-Douglas. I am experienced as a judge in Policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Parliamentary. See below for more info.

General: Debate is about your ability to understand, analyze, weigh, educate, and persuade in a contest of oral communication. Show me that you have developed these skills and abilities. I want to hear well-constructed arguments & reasoning, supported by relevant evidence and analysis. Depth means much more to me than breadth. During refutations, I want to hear true clash and expansion, not simple repetition of previously stated arguments. During final rebuttals, I want to hear a thoughtful bottom line -- the ability to sum up an entire debate is a very important skill. I can still make a decision without any of that, but good debaters will always demonstrate that they have learned the above skills.

PF/Policy/Parli: IF YOU SPREAD, I WILL PUT MY PEN DOWN, AND I WILL NOT RECORD YOUR ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE. Your speaker points will also reflect poorly. "Spread debate" teaches you (and me) nothing more than how fast you can speak and how fast I can write. The "spread" dynamic exists nowhere in the real world, except at debate tournaments. As such, I find spreading to be artificial and unproductive. If you never spoke at all, and simply pasted your cards onto a communal flow sheet with a series of arrows, you would reach the same endpoint as spread debate. So, please don't spread. Give me an outstanding LAY debate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I understand that these are values debates. But I see no utility in "stating your values" at the top of the speech (i.e. "My values for this debate are quality of life and egalitarianism.... now on to my arguments"). These opening statements mean very little, and I never write them down. I want to hear your case first. I want to hear solid background, arguments, and evidence, all of which SHOULD organically convince me of the values you support. You wouldn't make such empty opening statements about values in the real world, so I don't need to hear them in your speech. Show me how your arguments support your values, not the other way around.

Lowell '20 l UCLA '24

Yes, email chain: zoerosenberg [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: I was a 2N for four years at Lowell, I qualified to the TOC my senior year and was in late elims of NSDA. I don't debate in college due to a lack of policy infrastructure. I judge somewhat frequently on the west coast so I have a good sense of arguments being read on the circuit.

GGSA/State Qualifier: I will still judge rounds technically, as one does for circuit debate. However, I believe adaptation is one of the most important skills one can get out of debate so I encourage you to speak slowly, especially with parents on the panel.

--

Tech before truth. It's human nature to have preferences toward certain arguments but I try my best to listen and judge objectively. All of the below can be changed by out-debating the other team through judge instruction and ballot writing. Unresolved debates are bad debates.

Speed is great, but clarity is even better. If I'm judging you online please go slightly slower, especially if you don't have a good mic. I find it increasingly hard to hear analytics in the online format.

Be smart. I rather hear great analytical arguments than terrible cards. I generally think in-round explanation is more important than evidence quality.

I'm very expressive, look at me if you want to know if I'm digging your argument!

Call me by my name, not "judge".

Debnil Sur taught me everything I know about debate so check: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?search_first=debnil&search_last= for a better explanation of anything I have to say here.

Longer Stuff

What arguments does she prefer? I went for mostly policy arguments and feel more in my comfort zone judging these debates. That being said, I moved more to the left as my years in high school came to a close and am down to judge a well-defended kritikal affirmative. I think debate is a game but it's a game that can certainly can influence subjectivity development. Note: I would still prefer to judge a bad policy debate, over a bad kritikal debate.

Online Debate Adaptions

Here are some things you can do to make the terribleness of online tournaments a little less terrible.

1 - I really would like your camera to be on, wifi permitting. Debate is a communicative activity and your persuasion increases by tenfold if you are communicating with me face to face.

2 - Please use some form of microphone or slow down by 20%. It is really hard to catch analytics with poor audio quality.

3 - The benefits of sending analytics vastly outweigh the cons of someone having your blocks to a random argument.

4 - If it takes you more than a minute to send out an email chain I will start running prep. I genuinely don't understand how it can take up to five minutes to attach a document to an email chain lmao

K Stuff:

K Affs: I read a kritikal affirmative all of senior year but on the negative went for framework against most K affs. I don't have a definite bias toward either side. However, kritikal affirmatives that defend a direction of the topic and allow the negative to access core topic generics jive with me much more than simply impact turning fairness and skirting the resolution.

Framework: Fairness is an impact. By the 2NR please don't go for more than two impacts. Having a superior explanation why the TVA resolves their offense and doing impact comparison will put you in a good spot. Switch-side debate is a silly argument, but feel free to convince me otherwise.

Neg: I know the lit behind security, neolib, psychoanalysis, and necropolitics. Make of that which you will. I'm not going to be happy listening to your 7 minute overview. Explain the thesis of the kritik and contextualize the link debate to the aff and I will be quite happy. Winning framework means you probably win the ballot. And as Debnil puts it, "I believe I'm more of an educator than policymaker, which means representational critiques or critiques of debate's educational incentive structure will land better for me than most judges."

Competing interps or reasonability? Competing interps. Asserting a standard like limits needs to be warranted out, explain why your impacts matters. Have a clear vision of the topic under your interp, things like case-lists and a solid understanding of arguments being read on the circuit are important. T before theory. Also a good topicality debate is my favorite thing ever.

Is condo good? Yes, most of the time. Things like amending stuff in the block, kicking planks, fiating out of straight turns are sketchy. But in most debates, unless it's dropped or severely mishandled I lean neg. To win condo the affirmative must have a superior explanation why multiple advocacies made that debate unrecoverable. Going for condo only because you're losing on substance is not the move. Hard debate is good debate. Other theory preferences (I-Fiat, Process CPs, etc.) are likely determined by the topic. However, they're almost always reasons to reject the argument not the team.

Policy stuff? I like it. Link centered debate matters the most, so focus on uniqueness and link framing. Do comparative analysis of the warrants in your evidence. I really dislike bad turns case analysis, link turns case arguments will sit better with me. I think most types of counterplans are legitimate if the neg wins they are competitive. I'll judge kick if you tell me to do it.

TOC:

Evidence and Docs: There was a little confusion about evidence exchange and prep time this morning in the Judges Meeting. PF Tab clarified in an email that page 56/57 PF rules still stand and if Team A calls for Team B's evidence they can get free prep until Team B produces that evidence. When Team A gets that evidence in hand then prep time starts. Please let your judges know they got an email with the clarification. But please just send the evidence ASAP.

Let me stress again... I think it is an intervention to look at speech doc during a speech if you cannot understand the speaker. This incentivizes 2,000 word cases. I will not look at the speech doc until after the speech to read evidence only if it is relevant to a discussion in the round. If I clear you twice it probably means I am not going to be able to effectively flow what you want.

Emails: Please put gabriel.rusk@gmail.com on the email chain as well as fairmontprepdebateteam@gmail.com

Uniqueness: If you are running an argument that is based on some fairly recent dynamic or fluid geopolitical scenario you prob should have UQ updates from this week. Postdates aren't automatic evidence triumphs please still implicate why they matter.

Gabe Rusk

☮️

Background

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

Wanna come hang with me this summer? Sign up for the Summer Speech & Debate Think Tank at Stanford University.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at the Institute for Speech and Debate, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history. AP Macroeconomics Teacher too so don't make econ args up.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

Email: gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

Big Things

• What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.

• Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc. I strongly prefer impact debates on the probability/reasonability of impacts over their magnitude and scope. Obviously try to frame impacts using all available tools. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.

• Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.

• Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.

• I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

• (New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence. Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do).

• What needs to be frontlined in second rebuttal? Turns. Not defense unless you have time. If you want offense in the final focus then extend it through the summary.

• Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.

• I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.

• Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.

• If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.

• My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"

• Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].

• I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Hello!

I am a parent judge and have little experience judging public forum. Don't spread, speak at a slow and steady pace. It is important to me that you have proper decorum during the round and keep the debate respectful!

Most importantly, have fun :)

I am a parent judge, and this is my 2nd year judging PF. I am skeptical of statistics unless they are backed by good explanations and sound reasoning. I value well-structured cases, clear arguments, and explicit weighing. Dont spread

PF:

I did PF and qualled to gold TOC twice.

- if its not in summary it should not be in FF; extend links, warrants, and impacts please don't just say u can extend this

- Frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, defense is sticky but I will not evaluate offense unless it is extended and implicated

- speed is fine. if you will be spreading send me a speech doc (harishri2021@gmail.com)

- sign post please

- tech > truth

• Ks and theory are fine if you run it well and explain (do not do it just to confuse ur opponents)

please for the love of god preflow before the round if I have to wait for you I will be spiced, possibly enough to drop ur speaks

MOST IMPORTANT: if you want me to evaluate ur turns then u must do a 180 degree turn every time you read one. (this is a joke but I will boost ur speaks for it)

Parli:

• make me laugh
• do not make up evidence

I was in speech for four years, and did debate for two; I like to think I keep up to date on world events and am pretty educated on this type of stuff in general, but please remember to define your terms. I’m truth over tech. Try not to spread too much, I understand y’all wanna say a lot and the time limit can be kinda limiting, but just don’t be obnoxious about it. I love it when people can get passionate about a topic in debate, but just remember to be respectful to your opponents and not be rude or anything like that. Try not to go overtime. NO THEORY.

-your judge (Aidan)

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate
PHYSICS TEACHER
History
Myers Park, Charlotte N.C.
(85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD.
2 Diamond Coach (pretentious, I know)

Email Chain so I know when to start prep: mrschletz@gmail.com

Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab.

St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass
88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone

Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate)

Milpitas High, Milpitas CA
09-present co-coach

Side note/pet peeve: It is pronounced NUUUUUU-CLEEEEEEE-ERRRRRRRRR (sorry this annoys the heck outta me, like nails on the blackboard)

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins. ALSO: SENDING ME A SPEECH DOC does NOT equal "READ IN ROUND". If I yell clear, and you don't adapt, this is your fault.

If you put conditions on your opponent getting access to your evidence I will put conditions on counting it in my RFD. Evidence should be provided any time asked between speeches, or asked for during cx and provided between speeches. Failure to produce the card in context may result in having no access to that card on my flow/decision.

Part of what you should know about any of the events
Events Guide
https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf
13-14 NSDA tournament Operations manual
http://www.speechanddebate.org/aspx/content.aspx?id=1206
http://www.speechanddebate.org/DownloadHandler.ashx?File=/userdocs/documents/PF_2014-15_Competition_Events_At_A_Glance.pdf

All events, It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you. Do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... TAG TEAM CX? *NOT A FAN* if you want to give me the impression your partner doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, go ahead, Diss your partner. Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE"****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card means card wins.

PUBLIC FORUM:

P.S.: there is no official grace period in PF. If you start a card or an analytic before time, then finish it. No arguments STARTED after time will be on my flow.

While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy.
I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it)

I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't (Framework NOT introduced in the 1st 4 speeches will NOT be entertained, as it is a new argument. I FLOW LIKE POLICY with respect to DROPPED ARGUMENTS (if a speech goes by I will likely consider the arg dropped... this means YES I believe the 4th speaker in the round SHOULD cover both flows..)

Also: If you are framing the round in the 4th speech, I am likely to give more leeway in the response to FW or new topical definitions in 1st Summ as long as they don't drop it.

Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" READ IN ROUND ) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

PLANS IN PF
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible. EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

ALL EVENTS EXCEPT PARLI NEED TO KNOW NSDA RULES OF EVIDENCE (or CHSSA RULES OF EVIDENCE) OR DO NOT EXPECT ME TO COUNT IT(NSDA MINIMUM IS "NAME" AND "DATE" ****READ IN ROUND****) Anything else is just rhetoric/logic and 99% of the time, rhetoric vs card mans card wins.

POLICY:

If your plan is super vague, you MIGHT not get to claim your advantages. Saying you "increase" by merely reading the text of the resolution is NOT A PLAN. Claiming what the plan says in cx is NOT reading a plan. Stop being sloppy.

I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time especially on theory, Ks and RVI/fairness whines)
I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round.

Presentation skills: Stand in SPEECHES AND CX (where applicable) and in all events with only exception in PF grand.

Please don't diss my event.
I ran
Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic
Legalize pot on the Ag topic
CTBT on the Latin America topic.

In many years I have never voted neg on K (in CX), mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background)

I will freely vote on Topicality if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction......
I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious).
One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits and non topical/personal experiece affs, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT.

I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT)

SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!)
If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, and still insist on going too fast for your voice, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear.

I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine.

LD

I WILL JUDGE NSDA RULES!!!! I am NOT tabula rasa on some theory, or on plans. Plans are against the rules of the event as I learned it and I tend to be an iconoclast on this point. LD was supposed to be a check on policy spread, and I backlash, if you have to gasp or your voice went up two octaves then see below... Topicality FX-T and XT are cool on both sides but most other theory boils down to WHAAAAAAHHHH I don't want to debate their AFF so I will try to bs some arguments.

-CIRCUIT LD REFER to policy prefs above in relation to non topical and performance affs, I will TRY to sometimes eval a plan, but I wish they would create a new event for circuit LD as it is rarely values debate.

- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-).
Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all semantics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute)

IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW. Speaker points are awarded on speaking, not who wins the argument....

Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counter-plans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will be signalling that, by looking at you funny or closing my eyes, or in worst case leaning back in my chair and visibly ignoring you until you stop ignoring the judge and fix the problem. I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable.

PLANS IN LD
PLANS
If you have one advocacy, and you claim solvency on one advocacy, and only if it is implemented, then yeah that is a plan. I will NOT weigh offense from the plan, this is a drop the argument issue for me. Keep the resolution as broad as possible.

EXCEPTION, if the resolution is (rarely) EXPLICIT, or the definitions in the round imply the affirmative side is a course of action, then that is just the resolution. EXAMPLE
September 2012 - Resolved: Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban
the aff is the resolution, not a plan and more latitude is obviously given.

If one describes several different ways for the resolution to be implemented, or to be countered, you are not committing to one advocacy, and are defending/attacking a broad swath of the resolution, and this I do NOT consider a plan.

I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament.

GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

http://www.vbriefly.com/2012/05/23/201205comments-for-the-circuit-on-the-ncfl-and-nfl-nationals-by-brad-taylor/

I value clear and confident speech. I cannot judge you if I cannot understand what you’re saying. Be respectful to your opponents and do not cut people off. I am a flow judge, I do take notes of what you are saying.

Hello, my name is Suzanna Sinapyan. I graduated from Woodbury University with a Masters in Business Administration.

I've judged several PF rounds and have some preferences when it comes to rounds.

1. Please be respectful towards your teammates and judges - I do not and will not tolerate disrespect towards anyone in a round. Please have manners when speaking to opponents and refrain from acting aggressively or rudely.
2. Please make sure you're speaking at a volume that is audible for both your opponents and judges. Try not to mumble, especially if you're spreading. Do not purposefully speak low to hurt your opponents. If I cannot understand you, speaker points might be docked. If you choose to spread, keep it at an understandable pace and if you know you're going to go very fast, offer to share cases.
3. I judge based on your ability to defend your points. Being able to successfully make me believe that your points are stronger and better than your opponents will lead to you winning my ballot.

I believe that it is not the judge's job to decipher the round but instead the debater's job to simplify the round to the judge. I vote for teams with simple cases that are clear and easy to follow.

I did pf and extemp for Dougherty Valley and was decent at it for 4 years. I did NPDA for like a couple months in college.

My golden rules:

1. Ask Rahi Kotadia.

2. Refer to rule number 2

3. Add me on the email chain rohit.srinivas2@gmail.com. (I don't read ev (that seems legit) unless someone explicitly tells me to and extends it into FF)

4. PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE YOU REACH ROUND. I like to get started asap.

5. READING CARDS IS ON PREP TIME. IF YOU TAKE TOO LONG TO SEND EV I WILL START YOUR PREP TIME. I believe in evidence ethics and it is your responsibility to CUT cards and have them on hand for immediate access.

6. EVIDENCE ETHICS ARE KEY. IF I SUSPECT A CARD IS MISCONSTRUED/FALSE I WILL CALL FOR IT. If I do find it sus, I will tank speaks or maybe drop you. I have changed my stance on calling for cards in recent years because the quality of ethics has been declining severely. Now I do my best to maintain a fair field. I would prefer if everyone read cut cards, but I am not going to drop someone for paraphrasing unless someone reads paraphrasing theory.

7. I do disclose if you give me like 2-3 minutes to submit a decision. I will give oral RFD so stick around after the round. I will disclose speaks if you ask. I judge on how effective I believe you are at communicating. I default 28 if yall are kinda bad at conveying your args and go up to a 30 based on how well I thought you spoke. I can give feedback on speaking if asked.

PF:

Follow rules 1 and 2

Jokes aside I can handle anything pfers got. (I will tank speaks and reserve the right to drop you if you do something icky though. This is supposed to be a safe space)

I will only vote off args in ff, I will not evaluate args not extended in summary. ANY ARGUMENT THAT YOU WANT ME TO VOTE ON NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED PROPERLY. A PROPER EXTENSION MEANS RUNNING THROUGH THE WARRANTS AND LINKS AND THE IMPACTS AGAIN (explain the whole logic behind the argument every time not just a title or name of one). If you are not sure what this means ASK me before round.

Is a blip an argument? Absolutely not. If i say the sky is green with no warrant that is not an argument. I will not vote on turns that have no impact analysis done either. You cannot win without explaining how a turn interacts with their argument and how it gives you an impact.

IMPACT CALC IS KEY TO MY BALLOT. Tell me how to vote. Tell me which type of impacts come first. Tell me why your argument matters more than their argument. If you do not tell me what is more important I will be forced to make a decision on my own and I default to (probability*magnitude) and factor in time frame where shorter timeframe boost probability and longer timeframe harms probability.

Defense is sticky if the other team does not bring up the argument again. If they do, you need to extend defense as well.

IF YOU READ OFF CASE ARGS IN PF PLEASE READ THEM PROPERLY I DO NOT WANT TO EVALUATE SHELLS OR Ks WITHOUT FRAMING FOR EACH ARG. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS ASK BEFORE RD BEGINS. my threshold for tossing out theory spikes is low as long as it is not dropped.

Other args/events:

I did policy camp and picked up college Parli so I can evaluate theory args (Fw, T, random shells) and most common Ks (cap, set col, mil) . (if you do read a K please read it correctly). I do not have experience w stuff like Baudrillard and Nietzche. If you think your K is weird refer to rule number 2.

Tricks idk what to do with them, explain them to me like I am stupid and I might be able to understand. No guarantee I will vote on them the way you imagined.

CI>R unless told otherwise, condo good unless told otherwise (I do not have a threshold at which condo is bad because I believe the nature of reading so many args weakens each individual one), gimme a ROB.

No RVIs unless you have a good reason and win that.

Unlike Rahi I will not intervene and I vote purely off the flow.

Its been a year since I last did parli, so If you will be spreading I reserve the right to yell clear if you are unclear. If you are not a clear speaker above 250 wpm give me a speech doc. If you are clear I will need a speech doc around 275+.

Also please give me a proper off time road map/tell me what papers to put on top of each other.

Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA

I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for nine years, judging it for fifteen. I like it. I also coach PuFo and have coached Parli. I have judge two rounds of Policy as an adult and am not a fan.

LD: Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. Go off topic and you had better link to something.

Parli: I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence.

Public Forum: Stay within the rules. Don't dominate the grand crossfire. This was designed to resemble a "town hall" and should not get technical or be loaded with cards. It is a debate about policy, but it should not be debated as if it was Policy debate.

In more depth:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.

Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.

Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.

Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.

Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.

Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to other debates. If you want to debate using Policy methods, debate in Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges rules and norms is just overly clever games or exercises in deploying jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart. That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, disads) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept theory if all of the debaters are versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.

Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.

Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.

Email - chulho.synn@sduhsd.net.

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural Competency Certificate

Please make your contention loud and clearly.

Regular speed would be ideal.

Love debate.

Here is a collection of my most recent paradigm for each event I have judged. I'll try my best to keep my current tournament at the top.

ASU 2024 (CX)

nathanut919@gmail.com

Let me open with this: I did policy debate for a year, but I am not a “policy judge.” I am typically a speech or public forum judge.

I have 3 years of high school competitor experience doing public forum, policy, and extemp. I also did a semester of various speech events in college before the pandemic. I was an assistant high school coach for the 2022 season and have done a variety of coaching and judging for just about every event since.

I am not well versed on this topic and have only judged a couple novice rounds at the beginning of the season. I am, however, well versed on the different types of arguments you can run in policy, so go for whatever you are comfortable with as long as you give me ample context.

Given my lack of dedicated policy experience I will not be able to keep up with speed compared to other policy judges. Please slow down a bit, I would much rather hear you speak instead of reading a document for eight minutes. Please be very clear when you sign post. If I do not know where to write your argument, chances are I will be too concerned trying to figured that out and I will miss what you are saying.

I'd also like to stress the fact that the majority of my experience competing, coaching, and judging is with speech. If you want to cater to my paradigm heed the following advice. When it comes to the words that you say and the arguments you put forth, quality over quantity will unequivocally be in your favor.

I keep most biases out of the door in the debate space, but there is one I must address for fair competition. I am a scientist by trade, which means I have a heavy bias to truth and fact. I am not crazy enough to say truth > tech, but the only arguments I want to hear are arguments you truly believe in.

Last thing because this has become a pet peeve of mine. If an argument is dropped by one team, and then it is not addressed by the opposing team in the next speech, I will be kicking it entirely for the rest of the round.

Jack Howe 2023 (PF)

Something I should say right off the bat, I have zero experience judging or coaching this particular topic.

I have 3 years of high school competitor experience doing public forum, policy, and extemp. I also did a semester of various speech events in college before the pandemic. I was an assistant high school coach for the 2022 season and have done a variety of coaching and judging for just about every event since.

What I look for in a public forum debate is accessibility. Feel free to call me archaic, but I believe that this event should stay true to it’s name and not become a hyper-competitive and hyper-meta space like policy. What I look for is great speeches with thought out articulation, not just a slew of cards thrown at me down a line. That being said, I’m flexible with the arguments you can run and don’t carry much bias in that regard. I’m perfectly fine hearing arguments that are a little out of the box and not just stolen from a brief somewhere, the variety is nice. I also weigh your demeanor and respect for your opponents heavily when it comes to speaker points.

One bias I like to be transparent about is that I am a scientist by trade. I am perfectly capable of accepting tech over truth in a debate space, however, if the round is close, being on the side of truth will be advantageous to you.

Debate smart, be polite, be truthful, and remember to have fun!

jan_wimmer@yahoo.com

I did policy for 4 years in high school at Loyola. I've judged bid rounds and final rounds in policy and LD. I did parli at Tulane and was an assistant coach at Isidore Newman in New Orleans for a couple of years. I judged a lot between 2011-2015, both in the Louisiana area and at a good few national tournaments.

Tell me how to vote; paint me a picture in your last rebuttal and it will make me very happy. I like being told where and how to vote.

I was a fairly well rounded debater in high school, so I probably have familiarity with most arguments you're reading. My senior year, we went for States CP+Politics most rounds, would read the Cap K almost every round on the neg, and went for conditionality bad about once a tournament on Aff. I also read a Deleuze and Guattari aff before. However, if you're reading a weird K like Badiou that nobody reads, I'm probably not going to know it intuitively. That said, feel free to go for these arguments! I just won't know the lit for more obscure Ks.

If I don't get world of alt or a clear try or die/turns case on the K I'm probably not going to vote for it. Tell me how and where to evaluate pre-fiat impacts and how they interact with the role of the ballot if relevant.

I love good T debates. I love good theory debates. I will not just vote on theory or T just because it is dropped. Impact it like any other argument. I have a lower threshold than most for rejecting arguments due to theory than most. Either in-round abuse or why potential abuse in this specific instance, if you want me to reject team is almost always going to be needed.

Slow down on T and Theory. I hate if I can't flow it.

I think RVIs on theory are generally dumb but will vote on them if impacted well; I think RVIs on T are probably never true but I've voted on them in the past. I have a very low threshold for answering most RVIs.

Don't be that team that spends 6 minutes on case reading defense. Please read offense or some framework-esque reasons why defense should be enough to win. Disads probably shouldn't get 100% risk of link just on the nature of them being dropped, but if you're not calling them out on it, it's way easier for me as a judge to give them more leeway than I perhaps should.

I'm going to be able to understand spreading at any speed, but if your opponent can't understand spreading, slow down so that there's actually a debate so they can actually understand what's going on. Nobody is impressed that you can outspread a novice from a lay circuit; just win on the flow if you're better than them. If you're stupidly fast and it's an online tournament though, slow down, particularly if it's analytics/not in a doc you're sending.

I won't vote on arguments based on out of round stuff besides disclosure theory. I will likely look to drop you if you make any out of round-related arguments besides disclosure theory, which I won't drop anyone for but I'll hate judging it.

I'm fine with tag team and flex prep if both teams are.

Sending ev is off time. Don't prep during sending ev or I will either dock speaks or take off prep time, depending on circumstances. Include me in any email chains

I default to:

Competing Interpretations
Policymaking
Util
T before Theory before K

It is very easy to convince me to vote under some other paradigm though. If you win that I should be a stock issues judge, then I'll be your stock issues judge.

I dislike (but may still vote for):

Really Generic Politics DAs (I love intrinsic perms on politics because I dislike this argument)
Disclosure Theory
Speed Theory debates unless there's a clear need for it
Consult CPs
Tons of AC spikes
Shitty K debates where no one knows what's going on
Severance Perms (I probably won't reject team off of one, though)
People changing their alts or advocacies mid debate without a really good reason (ex: a team dropped reciprocity of conditionality means the aff can read a new plan at any point)
People saying that the opponent dropped an argument when they didn't (I will give you a look and it will affect speaks)
People reading Ks on case and not telling me they're reading a K on case in their overview

PF coach for Los Altos & Mountain View. Competed in congress & PF when I was a student.

Brief off-time roadmaps are fine when needed. Be sure to signpost and let me know which arguments you're addressing. Please don't spread– you will do better if I'm actually able to flow everything you say. When addressing a case line by line (such as in rebuttal), try not to jump around. Go down the flow from top to bottom.

By summary and final focus, you should collapse on the arguments you feel are the most important. Tell me what your key voter issues are and why you believe you're winning those issues.

If you and your opponent have evidence that say opposite things, extending your evidence has to be more than just re-stating it. Why should I prefer your evidence? Why does it still stand even with the evidence your opponents presented?

Weighing needs to be comparative. It's not enough to say your impacts are big– the important thing is they're bigger than your opponents'.

Speaker points are awarded based on confidence, appropriate volume & pace, sportsmanship, and overall demeanor.

Not a big fan of theory or Ks.

Good luck and don't be afraid to ask any questions you have before the round!

Hello debaters!

My name is Ke Yang,
I prefer if you speak more clear, make sure to sighpost very well. I will try to be as fair in my judging as possible, so please stay respectful.

Good luck and thank you.