I am judging debate from last few years. Please be sure to speak slowly and clearly so that I am able to take appropriate notes. Clarity over speed. If you use debate jargon, you will need to explain it to me.

I hope to see good use of evidence and delivery. Evidence should be timely, relevant, and trustworthy. Debaters should call for evidence and refute it when possible. Delivery is critical. Debaters should be clear and
concise. I want to see that you are defending your arguments well, not just negating your opponents points.

If you can keep track of speech times, that would be helpful.

It's important that debaters be courteous to each other during the round.

Have a great debate!

Debate Philosophy:

I approach debates with a focus on flowing arguments and evaluating them based on the flow. While I prioritize technical arguments over truth, I do expect clear and logical communication from debaters. Clarity of thought and logic is paramount, and I value well-warranted arguments over-reliance on evidence alone.

I weigh the claims by whether they are supported by two kinds of reasoning:

11. Truth: Why the claim is true.

22. Impact: Why this claim is important in the debate.

"Claims" apply to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes on my flow later. Providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily mean your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example is important to the debate as a whole.

Weighing Arguments:

Debaters should focus on weighing their arguments and demonstrating why their impacts outweigh those of their opponents. This includes considering scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability, or employing metaweighing techniques. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the round to aid in organization.

Topic Relevance:

I prefer debates to stay on topic and avoid off-topic or theoretical arguments aimed at disqualifying the other team. Definitions by the government/affirmative team are allowed, but abuse of this privilege will be penalized.

Argument Evaluation:

Warranted arguments are crucial for winning my ballot. Unsubstantiated claims are difficult to vote on, especially when effectively rebutted by the opposing side. It's essential to be charitable to opponents' arguments and engage with the best version of their claims rather than strawmanning them.

Public Forum-Specific:

In Public Forum debates, I prioritize logical reasoning over reliance on evidence cards. Debaters should focus on identifying weaknesses in their opponents' link chains rather than reading from prepared blocks. Clash should be evident by the rebuttal speeches, and second rebuttals should address all offense or risk concessions.

Evidence and Email Chains:

I do not typically review evidence or participate in email chains. Debaters must convince me of their arguments without relying on my review of evidence. However, if requested, I may assess evidence for accuracy.

Introduction:

Hello, I'm Bukunmi Babatunde, a graduate from the University of Ilorin. As a debate judge, my mission is to foster fairness and promote learning. Here's a summary of my judging approach:

Conflicts: None

Email address: bukunmi5176@gmail.com

Expectations:

When you encounter me in a debate, I prioritize fairness and active engagement. I value debaters who fulfill their roles, engage with the debate's burdens, and respectfully address opposing arguments.

Open-mindedness:

Even if you don't agree with the framing or the argument, I encourage you to engage with the other team's case. This demonstrates a comprehensive understanding and helps foster a constructive dialogue.

Clashes and Focus:

To have clashes in the debate, it's crucial to pinpoint and compare the warrants behind arguments. Examples, precedents, and empirics don't clash unless the warrants are addressed. Summaries should focus on key points, warrants, and reasons for winning, without reviving untouched arguments.

Equity and Timekeeping:

Following equity rules is essential for a fair debate environment. Please keep track of time, as it helps maintain a well-organized and efficient debate.

Special Considerations:

In virtual debate tournaments, if feasible, keeping your camera on is encouraged. Technical issues with wifi or connection are understandable. Additionally, please ensure your speeches are clear and intelligible, delivering at a medium pace for effective communication.

Other Remarks:

As a judge, I prioritize neutrality and impartiality. I appreciate well-structured arguments supported by evidence and logical reasoning. Clear articulation, persuasive language, and a logical flow in speeches are valued. Respectful conduct, adaptability, and effective rebuttals are important.

Evaluation and Feedback:

At the end of the debate, I evaluate each debater's overall performance based on the strength of their arguments, critical analysis, presentation skills, and engagement with the opponent's case. Constructive feedback will be provided to facilitate growth and improvement.

Conclusion:

My goal as a debate judge is to create a fair and intellectually stimulating environment. I evaluate arguments impartially, emphasizing logic, evidence, and adaptability. Through valuable feedback, I aim to contribute to the growth and development of all debaters involved.

I'm a lay judge and have some experience in PF debate.

• Please speak clearly and not too fast
• Please be respectful to each other
• Have fun debating!

I have judged several local county and more than 10 regional/national (online and in-person) tournaments over the past two years. With that being said, I am still a parent (lay) judge. My paradigm consists of the following:

1. If you spread anywhere near 200 words per minute, I will, at a minimum, need your case(s) to follow along. If you spread too fast, I will not be able to capture everything and it is highly likely that will impact both your team and speaker point scores;

2. As a lay judge, I do not accept any theory cases, which I hope is common knowledge. In the rare situation a theory case is provided, I will immediately drop your team. For PF, I believe everyone should argue the resolution because the teams worked so hard on their respective cases. Regardless, I understand that theory cases do have their merits, but please save those cases for tech judges;

3. When presenting your case, please clearly state out your contentions so I can properly flow the debate. It is sometimes easy miss your contention if it is not clearly stated;

4. My decision will ultimately be decided by weight the impacts, magnitude, and scope. As I am not a tech judge (yet), I will be looking for valid warrants (please do not go too far down the warrant rabbit hole) and will do my best to follow link chains accordingly;

5. Please ensure that evidence is accurate and properly represented. Also, please make sure that your evidence is from reputable sources and not fabricated/from fabricated sources. I prefer truth over tech;

6. Any/all discriminatory, hateful, harmful and/or profane language will result in an immediate disqualification. Please be respectful of everyone at all times;

7. I will do my best to explain my RFD at the end of each debate round (unless the tournament specifies otherwise). I understand that everyone wants to win, but since this is a competition between two teams; only one can win the round. Instead of taking it negatively, please try to learn from the experience and leverage any/all feedback. My feedback may not help with tech decisions, but the feedback could be useful with other lay judges; and

8. Have fun, make new friends/friendly rivals, build relationships, and cherish all of your experiences.

As Albert Einstein said, "The only source of knowledge is experience."

e-Mail for cases/evidence: davcho64@hotmail.com

Add me to the email chain: aaronchoi2009@gmail.com Speechdrop or email chain is fine

General

Tech > truth, but truth determines the extent tech matters. A blatantly false claim like "the sky is red" requires more warranting than a commonly accepted claim ie "the sky is blue". Unwarranted arguments in the constructive that receive warrants later on justify "new" responses to those warrants. This doesn't mean I won't vote on tricks or theory, but the ability to say "X is conceded" relies on "X" having a full Claim/Warrant/Impact - the absence of crucial elements of an argument such as warrants will mean that adding them in later speeches will justify new responses. If an argument is introduced in a speech where no such response is valid, it carries little weight. Otherwise, I will vote on anything.

familiar with the usual stuff - cap, baudrillard, psycho, biopolitics, anthro, setcol etc

signpost and make your speech easy to follow

Any speed is chill, just be clear and send docs

win offense and weight it, I’m lazy I don’t want to do the work for you

keep track of time PLEASE i stop flowing after your time is up

You can finish your sentence but dont go egregiously over time

Qualified authors & solid warrants in your ev are important. Evidence comparison and weighing are also important. In the absence of evidence comparison and weighing, I may make a decision that upsets you. That is fundamentally your fault.

Have fun and run anything you want im chill with Ks, theory, tricks, framing just warrant it out and make it an enjoyable debate to watch. Im also chill with meme theory and wtv else

Just be nice and ill give high speaks

Email me if you have any questions

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

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed.

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

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

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

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

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

Hello everybody,

I am a parent judge. I like listening to debates and seeing how the flow of arguments evolve.

I admire when debaters are polite and ask questions with a spirit of inquiry.

Also, it is more important to speak in a manner that communicates your point of view rather than trying to cram facts at supersonic speed.

Look forward to some fantastic debating!

- Saurav Dey

I value good speeches that use rhetorical devices (ethos, logos, and pathos) paired with good statistical evidence. Speaker points will reflect the quality of speeches. I give speaker points in the range of 28 - 30.

Be culturally component and aware of your privileges when making general statements, truly try to understand someone else's experience before conducting a stereotype.

Put me on the email chain: vg.nautilus@gmail.com

Dulls HS '23: debated policy all four years + three tournaments in PF

Policy

Prefs:

fyo BUT a speaks fairy

In order of decreasing frequency, rounds I most often debated are:

1. K Aff v. Fwk
2. Policy Aff v. K
3. K aff v. K
4. Policy v. Policy
5. Theory stuff ig

Things you can actually change before round that would help me:

1. I do not know the topic sorry :,(
2. Clarity >>>>>>>>
3. Give the important args (turns, perms, DAs, links) actual names
4. Lots of pen time between flows -- blow raspberries between sheets idc just give me time
5. Send analytics if you're comfortable
6. I flow cross + it's binding
7. T-USfg: functional limits check and structural fairness overwriting procedural fairness [attached reason that matters] are persuasive to me.
8. Don't judge kick
9. I don't like when people spam perms -- more than 2 in the 2AC and I may just not flow the rest — oh also an actual perm text (like literally: perm do [actual plan text] and [the parts of the CA that would be executed in the world of the perm]) will get a speaks boost and is probably also helpful when like ~articulating the world of the perm~
10. Offense/Defense paradigm
11. Condo is occasionally bad!
12. Slow down on theory, topicality, framework

PF

Probs pretty tech but not worth wasting your strikes on even if you're a lay debater.

Prog: dislike theory/Ks in PF but also like intervention probably bad so:

• I'll evaluate everything but I'll intervene at the level of speaks (e.g., a valiant effort by a lay debater facing prog will be rewarded; an LD transplant reading theory or Ks badly will not).

Things you can actually change before round that would help me:

1. Set-up an email chain; send all cards for every speech (the underlined, bolded, and highlighted versions) before hand -- it won't count as prep time unless it takes you egregiously long.
2. Label major arguments (e.g., "the credibility turn," "intervention turn," etc.) or at the VERY LEAST number your arguments.
3. Probably more partial to no-brink = no-impact than most PF judges
4. Offense/defense paradigm
5. Asserting your impact has a "greater magnitude, scope, and probability than theirs" is not impact weighing. If y'all are going to insist on "quantifiable impacts" please at MINIMUM give me two numbers (yours and your opponents) in the impact weighing + a reason why yours matters more. I do not, however, think quantification is necessary to building a compelling impact.
6. I flow cross + it's binding
7. Kritiks must have a topic link
8. Speed will probably not be a problem for me

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

Notes for novices:

Roadmap: the order in which you will go to arguments during the debate, essentially a table of contents. This is given before you start the time to your speech (eg. "The order is: the Biz Con DA, Case, the DoS CP, and the K.")

Off vs. On Case: Off case positions are either DAs, CPs, Ks, or T shells. On case positions are Case Defense, Impact Turns, Case Turns, Solvency Deficits, etc. I guess technically anything (except CPs and probably T shells) can be an on-case position - it's just a matter of which sheet you want the judge to flow on.

My name is obiora Goodluck, am a judge and have judged in many debates,

My rounds will always be a respectful and inclusive space for everyone. Disrespectful or offensive language and misgendering will not be tolerated in my rounds. I didn't think I'd have to remind people of this but I would like people to check for racial bias in their cases and language. You can affirm or negate any resolution without biased arguments.

In debate events, I am looking for a few things: confidence in both your argument and your delivery, quality arguments, and rebuttals, and a fair and respectful debate.

Clarity is of utmost importance to me. you must speak clearly and at a normal pace. It is an accessibility concern for me, as well as other debaters and judges with disabilities. Your presentation of your speeches is important to me as well as the content. Deliver your speeches with confidence and clarity.

I'm not very particular about how you debate, all I ask is that it is logical and easy to follow. With that being said I am ok with spreading because it focuses on systems under which society operates.

I'm okay with debate theory, make sure it's educational and fair.

I'm okay with spreading, I understand that you have to talk fast and at the same time sustain your arguments.

Just be clear and loud

I have never been on a debate team before, but I enjoyed watching debate tournaments in the past. I am very open minded about any topics. I think what makes debate fascinating is always how people may see the same thing from different angles. So every time after I watched a debate tournament, I feel I am so refreshed with my own views on the very same topic. I personally like clear and calm verbal expressions over some speedy speech in a very fast pace that potentially increase heart beats of audiences. But overall, I sincerely wish everyone enjoys debating. There are no winning or losing in the tournament, you are always becoming a better yourself after each tournament. Have fun!

DEBATE SHOULD NOT BE A GAME. DO NOT ABUSE TRIGGER WARNINGS AND OPT OUT WHEN YOU ARE NOT TRIGGERED JUST TO AVOID THE ARGUMENT. THAT IS EXTREMELY DISRESPECTFUL TO ACTUAL VICTIMS.

with that, hi! i'm sherry, and i've been doing pf on the national and texas circuits for 3 years

tech > truth unless it's stupid (ie sexism exists, racism exists, you can't disprove that. i'm ok with spark, recession turns, climate change turns, etc tho). i flow the round

ofc, debate is a safe space, and any discriminatory speech or action will result in an auto L20

general:

i evaluate framing -> weighing -> argument that won weighing -> next best argument if the argument that won weighing has terminal defense on it. if weighing is nonexistent/a wash, i vote on strength of link

i will not evaluate responses that are extended through ink

everything needs to be extended through summary and final for it to be a factor in my decision

i can flow up to 250 wpm. if you're going faster, send a doc. i'll be a little disgruntled, but i won't hold it against you

i vote off warrants, not card names. my threshold for extensions isn’t that high - just hit every link in the chain

prog:

i've run stock ks (terror talks <3, orientalism, securitization stuff) before, and i'm comfortable evaluating them. i'm not suuuper familiar with non-T ks because i've never debated them before, but i know how they work. if your k is kind of convoluted, just slow down and warrant it out more. i really don't know how to evaluate performance ks - i'm probably not the best judge for them

i've also run theory shells, but i think debaters should reserve this for actual abuse (so no friv)

i've read high theory lit (mostly baudrillard), but i'm not super familiar with it, and i've never run it before - i'm down to try and evaluate them, just be super clear abt what i'd be voting on

i think trix are funny, but i've never debated them before. i'm down to try and evaluate a trix round, but i can't guarantee an rfd or result you'd like

i don't really know what phil or larp entails lol

pet peeves, in order of i-will-probably-hack-against-u to mild annoyance:

1. reading pess when you're not part of that demographic (eg reading afropess as an asian debater)

2. dumping straight unwarranted, unimplicated, unimpacted, one-sentence turns in rebuttal and blowing them up in summary

3. profanity (unless you're reading rage/killjoy), especially if it's used aggressively

4. saying "my time will start in 3...2...1." this is a debate round, not a space shuttle launch - or "my time will start on my first word." when else would it start, ur second word?? just make sure everyone is good and start brah lol

misc:

if u finish the round within 45 minutes of starting, i'll +1 speaks

if u email rl3.rina@gmail.com "i hate disclosure" and show me proof before round, i'll +0.2 speaks

Hi - my paradigm is a work in progress.

Speech clarity is very important, use signposting, some/medium speed is okay. Please state your claims clearly, provide evidence and highlight the impact(s). Don't use too much technical stuff - if you do, please explain it in short otherwise the argument will be lost on me. I will be looking for cohesive reasoning. I prefer expanding on a few ideas over many ideas delivered quickly.

Lastly please be respectful to your competitors and everyone else in the room.

Good luck !

I am a new judge and I expect debaters to be concise about their points. I like candidate to be comfortable when speaking out and when in doubt avoid making any arguments. Confidence and clear articulation is what I am looking for. The message should be clear and each argument should support your side. Don't talk too fast. Truth > tech.

1. This is my paradigm; I will explain how I approach judging in a FAQ format. Hopefully, it's clear. If you have any questions, email me: khumalothulani.r@gmail.com

1. What is my experience level?

Here are my judging qualifications:

2022: Implicit Bias - Project Implicit, USA

2022: Cultural Competency course - National Speech and Debate Association, USA

2022: Adjudicating Speech and Debate – National Speech and Debate Association, USA

2022: Protecting Students from Abuse - US Centre for Safesport, USA

You can find my certificates here (Google Drive):

I have been judging for two years now, since 2022, and have judged about 22 tournaments (I have no idea how many flights but probably hundreds lol). I have experience in most formats: LD, PF, WSD, BP, AP, Congress, SPAR, Impromptu, Policy, and even the rare ones like Big Questions and Extemporaneous. I have some experience in oratory speeches like DUO. Yes and many rare debates (for example, one time I did a radio debate where the speakers were performing as radio announcers, giving local news, sports, etc, with 1950-type voices-- it was a pretty cool experience :)).

2 2. What are my preferences as they relate to your rate of delivery and use of jargon or technical language?

I pretty much understand complex English words. Having studied engineering in college, it's pretty much a given that I understand most of the stuff and words that may be deemed complicated. However, debate is an Art of Convincing and Converting, so don't try to use too much jargon like a lawyer (or a surgeon lol), as it might end up confusing your opponents and me.

Rate of Delivery: Any delivery pacing is welcome. Generally, I prefer a medium pace; a slow pace is okay, too, if you can explain your contentions adequately in the given time. Medium or conversational pacing gets the point across really well. When it comes to fast pace, don't speak in a monotonous way like you are reading..(approach your speech as if you are trying to convince me to follow your case), and don't rush too much: take your time; it's your moment, be free. I don't have any difficulties understanding fast-paced deliveries; however, during the speech, you must factor in the time for me to process the information you say. But remember, it is not only me; your opponents must also understand what you are saying. This means, you really don't need to have too many contentions to be convincing (Quality over quantity).

33. How do I take notes during the round?

I am a writer, and there is no stopping my pen. First, you have to know that during your contentions, I basically write down all your points, examples, and details. I keep my notes detailed so that it's easy to recall and give a balanced assessment. However, I highlight your major contentions so that I get an appreciation of your overall message. This is important in that, usually during questioning, there usually are nuanced questions coming from the other side relating to minor arguments, such as an example that was not stressed upon. Picking all that up is important so that I don’t forget or get surprised when someone asks a question on a minor point.

4. Do I value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Are there certain delivery styles that are more persuasive to me?

Arguments and style are both important to me. Generally, I give Arguments 70% and style 30%. When I rate every debate, there is an argumentative section and a performative section that is essentially style and delivery. For me to give you the round, you have to provide me with convincing and logical arguments supported by examples/exhibitions (argument). Then there is style: After every debate, I always emphasise how important a structured speech is. There must be a flow to your case. Start by saying something out of the box to raise my interest (Give an exciting hook, show me how smart you are); after you introduce the topic, state your major contentions, then explain them, giving evidence. Don’t give too much proof because you need time to explain to me, as if I am a layman, what it all means and the impacts of an action. Then, as you conclude, give a summary (remind me of the journey of the speech). This delivery style is tried and tested, However, if you think you have your own style that will convince me, go for it. You can trust me when I say to you that I pay a lot of attention to detail.

45. What are the specific criteria I consider when assessing a debate?

1. Clarity: outline your key contentions early on in the debate, and use these to link your argumentation for consistency and clear logical flow.

2. Rebuttal: be genuine with engaging matters from the other side. Make strategic concessions while showing me how your side solves the problems you illuminate from the other side. Avoid making claims without justifying why they are valid or essential to the debate and at what point they engage with the other teams' arguments.

3. Conclusions: When deciding on a winner, I use the key clashes that came out in the debate regarding the strength of weighing and justification. This means, as debaters, you need to prove to me why you win certain clashes and why those clashes are the most important in the debate. That is to say, mechanise each of your claims (give multiple reasons to support them) as you make them make it easier to weigh clashes at the end of the debate.

4. Coherency. Make sure your delivery is coherent. The perk of writing stuff down is you can catch a lot of mistakes, so make sure everything tallies up.

56. If you have judged before, how would I describe the arguments I found most persuasive in previous debate rounds?

Essentially, the most compelling arguments are the most well-explained, and the impacts of those arguments are well-explained and logical. Try not to brush things off, manage your time wisely, and don’t come with a lot of contentions…3 or 4 are usually enough (depending on the debate format); explain well, give proofs, and give impacts.

67. What expectations do you have for debaters’ in-round conduct?

In the round, everyone is EQUAL, and everyone is free to express themselves. It’s a safe space for everyone. Be kind to one another, and that means no bullying or targeting of any sort.

78. Feedback. I will give verbal feedback if the tournament allows, disclosing who has won and why. I will also write feedback on Tabroom for every individual. My job is to make sure that you learn from the debate experience and take something positive.

89. Time: I prefer that the speakers have time clocks with them (this won't lose you marks, lol). I prefer the round to flow naturally without my continual interruption, interjecting here and there (for example, you: “Judge Ready?”— Me: “Ready”) if there is something to be said.

Cheers!

I've judged public forum debates for a while now, so I'm familiar with common positions and arguments. Please speak at a moderate pace and slow down for taglines and author names.

I'm an open-minded judge. Sticking to the resolution is crucial, and creative thinking is valued. However, the ability to handle strong arguments and deep thinking is just as important.

Remember, let's keep the focus on the topic and have a constructive exchange of ideas. Good luck to both teams!

I am a new judge.

Comfortable with moderate speed and appreciates clear framework establishment.

My email (for email chains, or questions): edklin@gmail.com

Background and Experience:

I did policy debate for Leland High School from 1998-2002. I placed at state, went to nationals, earned ToC bids, was in semi-finals of Berkeley, etc. In other words, I competed at a high level in front of both parent judges and circuit judges (slow and fast debate).

For approximately 3+ years after graduating from high school, I came back to Leland to coach policy debate.

However, as you can see, that was MANY years ago. I have been coaching debate at a small private school (The King's Academy) since 2018. I have NOT judged (in practice or in a tournament) any truly circuit/fast debate rounds for over 10 years. [I have judged a few fast rounds at local league tournaments, but these are not the same, of course, as fast rounds on the circuit--I would call this medium speed policy debate].

While I still believe I can handle fast-type arguments (Kritiks, theory, CPs, etc.), two possible problems: 1) I might not be up-to-date on contemporary debate lingo or newer concepts and 2) I might not be able to handle top spreading speeds due to my lack of practice listening to spreading.

Since coming back to debate in 2018, I have judged other debates (LD, PF, etc.), and they generally make sense to me even though I may be less familiar with their cultures. I should be able to handle a medium speed debate in these non-policy debate events.

Profession:

I have been teaching in the sociology department at UC Berkeley since 2014. My subfields are in immigration, globalization, and international development. I also frequently teach classes on sociological research methods (and evaluation of evidence). This is just for your reference so you know what kinds of ideas, concepts, ways of thinking I would most likely be familiar with.

Overall Paradigm:

I do consider myself to be tabula rasa (blank slate). That means that I will try my best to keep my personal opinions out of the evaluation of the debate round and only consider what you say. This means that if you do not say it explicitly (for example, you do not say, the disadvantage outweighs the affirmative case because...) then I cannot evaluate that argument. I will first try to judge the round based strictly on the arguments made in the debate, but if I feel like it is impossible for me to decide who wins based on the arguments in the round, then I will end up intervening and using my own judgment of what arguments were made more persuasively or less persuasively (based at least somewhat on my own personal opinion and feelings about those arguments that are made, or feelings about how good the presented evidence was). I prefer NOT to intervene, but many debates often end up this way because the 2NR/2AR (last two speeches) do not clearly explain how I should vote and/or both teams make the same arguments over and over and neither seem to be winning logically over the other team and so I have to step in and decide what I think is the better argument.

Key Points to Pay Attention To:

- Be clear and explain thoroughly.
- 2NR and 2AR (last two speeches) needs to have clear articulations of how the judge should vote (including impact weighing/comparisons)
- In policy, I am neither "stock issue" or "policy" paradigm, but rather, you explain what you think I should be or do to evaluate the debate round (you tell me what is the best way to evaluate the round and why--convince me to adopt a paradigm if you want me to adopt one, or just convince me why I should vote for you).

I have some judging experience, however consider me a lay judge while making arguments.

I am here to evaluate the arguments presented by both teams and determine which team has done the better job of persuading me. I am not an expert in debate, so I will not be able to follow complex arguments or jargon. I am looking for debaters who are clear, concise, and persuasive. I will also be considering your delivery and demeanor when making my decision

some specific things I will be looking for:

• Clarity:Can you explain your arguments in a way that I can understand?
• Conciseness:Can you get to the point without using too many words?
• Persuasiveness:Do you use evidence and logic to support your arguments?
• Delivery:Do you speak clearly and confidently?
• Demeanor:Are you respectful of your opponent and the judge?

some things that I will not be swayed by:

• Speed:Speaking quickly does not make you more persuasive.
• Volume:Yelling does not make your arguments more valid.
• Jargon:Using complex debate jargon will only make it harder for me to understand your arguments.
• Personal attacks:Attacking your opponent personally is not a valid argument.

Hello there!

• Varsity PF debater on the national circuit at two institutions
• maheshwari.arnav1@gmail.com - add me on all evidence email chains.
• I have been debating for three years in PF

DO:

• Be respectful of each other. Don't yell in crossfires, or try to trap your opponents. Make sure that your speech content and overall actions are respectful of other people in the debate space.
• Weigh and Clash - Elaborate moments of clash and why I should vote for you. If you win on weighing, you have basically won the round. Going for weighing mechanisms like pre-req/trigger is even better because I know I have to evaluate one argument over the other. Always expand on clash in the flow - that should be self explanatory, but don't avoid it.

DO NOT:

• Shadow extend. If you want to make a dropped turn or something else the focal point of the back half of the round, do it. Just don't shadow extend it and suddenly make it the most important voter in final focus.
• Speak Fast. I don't have a problem with moderate spreading, but if you are going to, ALWAYS send a speech doc. Also, make sure that your opponents are comfortable with spreading. Just because you send a speech doc doesn't mean that they're also okay with spreading.
• Bring up new arguments in Summary, FF -Not cool. Don't make up new pieces of offense or defense in the back half. If the opponents call them out and it is warranted, then more speaker points. I'm not going to automatically discount any new arguments, though. You have to point that out to me in a speech/crossfire.
• Post Round - The round is over. Please don't post-round, or tell me about how many rules they broke. If you guys want to have a fun conversation after round, go for it. But, no post-rounding.

If you decide to run theory, I am fine in understanding most of your normal theory arguments (disclo, paraphrase, etc.) - but for some more nuanced theory then better to make sure that you explain it well to me so I can flow and evaluate it.

Not super sure with the K's though...

Most of this is pretty standard across most tech paradigms - so interpret me as your average tech > truth judge.

Some things you can do for speaker points (I can't say that you'll get these points for sure - but, you could try)

• Start with something funny +1.
• If you're on FF and start AND end with something really funny, 30.
• If you have a really good crossfire (get them to concede something really big) + 2

Just lock in.

I am a lay judge, speak clearly and have good evidence. Good luck.

Update for Winter Cup 12/16/2023:The point is for novices or beginners to learn -- I don't want to hear theory or 400 wpm spreading

Hello! I'm vedant (vuh-dahnt). I've debated on the natcirc for 3 years, quartered STOC, made it to top outs a few times and broke at some nat circs. I will flow and evaluate whatever.

My goal as the judge is to adjudicate (obvious) and (arguably more importantly) make the round a safe, inclusive space. If you're not sure what anything on my paradigm is or wanna ask about anything else, feel free to email me at vedantamisra@gmail.com

TL; DR in bold

Alr, time for the juicy stuff:

• tech> truth, "tabula rasa", whatever you need. Make rounds fun, debate is a game. So, have fun with it.

• Feel free to post round. I think it's crucial to get feedback in the middle of a tournament. Please just don't be too aggressive with it (I will NOT change my ballot/decision).

• Cool with (and lowk pref) open crosses
• Take unlimited prep if ur asking for evi (while the opps send it*). Like in the TOC guidelines, I believe that it incentivizes teams to be quick with ev exchanges. PLEASE BE QUICK with evidence. If you take too long, I'm hard docking speaks and getting frustrated, making me less likely to vote for you.
• If its a panel with lays, I'll adapt to them unless you ask me not to. I feel like everyone should be accommodated. It shouldn't be a problem for you to go lay.
• If you think something's missing from my paradigm, please feel free to ask me at the same email.
• Also, please put me on the email chain. vedantamisra@gmail.com
• speed is good but send a speech doc before and make any accommodations your opponents ask for (including not going fast). if your spreading is bad i'll be sad and so will your speaks (wompity womp) formatting accommodations like rehighlighting cards, bolding, or making text bigger should also be met
• My favorite debaters/influences are Jason Luo, Ishan Dubey, Ryan Jiang, Jack Johnson, Sully Mrkva, and Ashwath Nayagudarai.
• Also i will be timing almost everything. I'll put my hands up past 5 seconds and stop flowing. Otherwise i'll dock speaks a little
• i'm pretty facially expressive -- I'll smile or laugh if what u say is funny or stupid -- or if ur corny. I'll also look confused if I'm confused or look exasperated if i'm exasperated, etc.
• Bro pls stop being corny "i'm going to begin on my case, defending allegations, and then flat out explaining why our evidence is credible" or "we still stand strong and have proven MULTIPLE TIMES" like idgaf pls enjoy ur life and find religion

*****SUBSTANCE*****

• I like hypertech rounds with evidence and spreading, but that doesn't mean you should have a lack of warranting. Please warrant no matter what (including extensions of case and responses!)
• FOR SPREADING: I can go 300 to 350ish wpm. After that, u risk losing me on the flow. (would also be down to hear spreading theory)
• Second rebuttal needs to frontline all offense and most defense. I feel like its hella unfair to 1st summary if you don't. They could point out that defense was conceded, then 2nd summ comes with some new frontlines. Don't necessarily frontline defense if you don't plan on going for it.
• First summary can extend how they want to. I've voted for debaters that straight up just went for turns, or just went for their case and a few pieces of defense. Bottom line, go for SOME offense in the back half.
• In terms of the entire round, weigh. ESPECIALLY IN THE BACK HALF, the best way to my ballot is to extend case, weigh comparatively, and extend the most terminal stuff on your opponents case. Lowk, if you can just explain to me why I should prioritize your offense over your opponents', it'll probably suffice as weighing. Just be sure to do a comparative.
• Terminalize your impacts. 'Cybercrime increasing' doesn't matter to me. $10 trillion + GDP losses -> poverty as a result of cybercrime does tho
• Make a really good comparative and meta-weigh. I LOVE META-WEIGHING. I rly wish more teams used it.
• i do think evidence is important but i need warrants with claims. in the complete absence of warrants in evi, good analytical warrants > unwarranted cards. pls extend nicely, warrant, implicate, and weigh <3 evidence misconstruction is bad and if you do it you may have to lose :(
• At the end of the day, I approach my flow and look to see who had the best comparative, then the cleanliness of the flow, and then the best defense/offense on the opps' case. To quote Katheryne Dwyer, " i think the best debaters are ones that build a narrative and still engage well on the tech (which is my way of saying poor spreading, short extensions, and a bunch of underwarranted blippy frontlines are not the way to my heart nor my ballot). my favorite debates are pretty quick techy substance rounds that still have lots of warranting and very clear ballot directive language in the backhalf." Watch Edina JS vs Strake Jesuit DY Emory Quarters on YT for a pretty good example (minus the deont stuff in the 1NR).

• Carded weighing is GASSSS.

• I like framework debates. Feel free to read new frameworks in every speech minus summaries and final foci. If it's conceded, then u don't have to ext everything. I.e. if someone concedes a 30-45 second structural violence framework, only spend like 10-15 seconds on it in final focus.

EVIDENCE:

This one's important.

I'll call for evidence that I think is important or if I am told to call for it. If you have terrible evidence ethics, I'll call you out, drop the evidence from the flow, and prob take speaks off depending on how bad the evidence is.

If you don't give the warrant in the round, I don't care how good the evidence is.

You don't need evidence for everything. The "arguments start with research and evidence" coach/judge mentality strangles creativity and free thought. If you have a logical claim, back it up with logic. Be careful with what you may think is "logical," you might not see the hole in your chain, and that's part of what we are debating for. If something requires evidence (pointing out quantifiable changes for example), then evidence is needed. If one side has evidence and the other has bad logic, then the evidence will be weighed heavily. But the evidence element is often just a constraint put on debaters by big school judges with freshman prep squads that can pump out a billion cards in a day as a way of maintaining an edge. Evidence is very nice, and research is important (I was a research first debater), but don't let it be the cage of your mind.

warranted empirics > warranted evidence > warranted analytic > unwarranted empirics/evi > unwarranted blips. blips are sad.

PROGRESSIVE

In general, I'm mostly okay with evaluating prog.

Theory:I dont like theory but i ran it a little. I also hit frivolous and stock shells. I have a decent amount of experience and can probably keep up with most shells. Just ask me before your speech if I think I can judge it to make sure. I'm open to hearing both stock shells such as paraphrase and disclo, as well as frivolous shells. Just make sure the shell isn't toooo frivolous i.e. formal clothing bad theory. In terms of winning on theory, you gotta have RVIs to hv offense on the shell. Make sure you signpost a counter interp and really anything. I will default to competing interps. You don't have to use jargon when responding to theory --> j make sure the general stuff is there i.e. disclo bad for XYZ, para good for XYZ.

- Defaults: yes OCIs, no RVIs (low threshold for responses tho), CI > reasonability (minus friv theory), and the whole shebang.

• Don't disclo and paraphrase iyw -->I might not give good speaks but I'm def not hacking --> so many judges basically hack on this and thats sad (esp bc small schools genuinely don't know what stuff is)

• Reactionary theory can be read in any non final focus speech based on the circumstance i.e. someone mispronouned you like 9 times in 1st summary, u read pronoun theory in 2nd summ is okay. Or, read paraphrase theory directly after the speech someone used the paraphrased evi in like in 1st summ.
• IVIs are kinda stupid but I understand the genuine ones -- someone dropped some bs card, paraphrased but its too late, etc. As long as its not the blippiest 15s IVI idrc

Kritiks:I haven't hit too many K's, so be slightly wary with them. I will do my best to judge them, however. I would love to judge a round with good substantive K's that have understandable warrants. I prefer substansive K's, but will also judge non-T K's. Be prepared tho, I will 100% vote on T ( I won't hack but I will prefer a conceded T shell over a non-T K. Make sure to hv a CI to T if you run non-T K's).

Tricks:I used to not like these/understand them. Run them tbh. I think the funnier the better. Just don't read four straight minutes (u risk a lot) but maybe sprinkle some in w/ a security K or something. J make sure that the extensions and tricks themselves are WARRANTED.

Before you do any prog make sure you understand it -- I mean that --> theres literally been no round I know of that doesn't have messiness involved in prog.

Backfiles DONT save you either, they're usually the problem source.

LD Paradigm

Usually k affs need to change the squo to be convincing (unless its an Adv T aff!) something to change the squo in the world in debate

tell me if ur kicking out of something i.e. if i should judge kick the cp

do anything u want same stuff applies from the pf stuff j know im a standard tech judge

SPEAKS:

Going for good speaks is cool. Here are some good things you can do outside of substance that will probably boost your speaks massively.

1. Good basketball joke/analogy. I was surprised to see Alec Boulton with a pretty similar speaks chart. If you talk about glorious king LeBron or Lakers, auto 30. (russ jokes don't count anymore :(. )
2. If you read 4 mins of impact turns or 4 min of j turns in 2nd constructive auto 29.5 (30 if u read an impact turn I haven't heard of yet)
3. If you turn in your chair or standing up when ur reading a turn
4. If you make a good cricket joke/analogy. Call me Indian as hell (true tbh) but I rly like cricket. My fav players are my other glorious king Kohli, LeSuryaKumar Yadav, Sachin Tendulkar, and Chris Gayle.
5. Hip-Hop references. My fav artists are Gambino, Outkast, Travis Scott, Biggie, (the man who made Graduation), Tyler, the Weeknd, and so many more. auto 30 for a good ref.
6. Making jokes in cross (auto 28.5). 27 if they're corny tho.
7. Be nice/ don't be not nice. Be competitive, just not rude/condescending. Even if you're hitting the worst arg in the history of args, don't act like your opponent is dumb or something. It's not too hard.
8. Don't steal prep(minus the ev exchanges thing).
9. If you read evi, HAVE IT CUT or suffer low speaks, ur opponents having 5 mins of free prep, and a probable L (i wont hack but i'll be in a bad mood)

otherwise, I default to 28 and add/subtract based on how you did. If you followed my paradigm and did a good, warranted, clashful, fun debate -- expect a high 29.something. Otherwise, if it was mid and normal, expect a 28.5. I usually don't dock speaks unless evi. For instance, if you take 5 mins to send, i'll cut you down to 27.

IMPORTANT STUFF:

- Responding to prog or squirrely args with the"we're small schools and don't know" I j wont flow it. if ur in varsity -- prepare for varsity arguments. Anything is game. Be ready for K's, Tricks, theory, funky ass arguments, and literally anything. obviously if ur a novice or JV then its different lol.

i won't evaluate any arg that is exclusionary. bigotry = L + as few speaks as i can give you + contact ur coaches + tab gets involved. I'm dead serious when I say it's not hard to be exclusionary and anything otherwise will get me mad as hell. My first duty is to make the round safe y'all -- its not hard.

Content warnings: yes they're important (I should be fine evaluating anything for now) but most often people use them too much. I don't think poverty, death, or anything like that needs one. If it's graphic descriptions or is abt things related to abuse, SA, trafficking, or something sensitive and personal -- yes do one. Read TW theory if u need but if there was a genuine abuse I'm stopping the round and dropping you.

Unless the tournament says otherwise, I will disclose and give my RFD (may even do disclo if the tourney doesn't allow me -- its stupid to not know if you won or lost ((unless its a round robin!)))

Pet Peeves

• "time starts on my 1st word" not that annoying but still
• "can I take one min of prep" --> j take some and take however much u want idc
• "i have proven throughout this round multiple times" or cringe phrase like that --> ugh
• MOST IMPORTANTLY: I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND THE MFS W LONG OFF TIME ROADMAPS- j tell me where u start and signpost, if a roadmap is more than 5-7s than imma cry and taaaaaaaank speaks dont dont dont do it. i better not hear "i will begin on my argument, pointing out why my opponents responses are wrong and why our evidence is better and why we have better impacts and why im a monkey" istg

TO CONCLUDE

Have fun with the round. Try new stuff and do your best -- hard work pays off.

Overall -- do what you want just do it well. Have some fun in the rounds and try to learn something. Everyone has a favorite argument they try to write about or run every topic ( i.e. drug trafficking, china/US heg, biotech innov) so try to find yours. At the very least don't be uncomfortable. Do your best and leave the rest to the flow.

Sorry -- that was long. if you made it then answer this riddle (if ur correct u get an auto 30):

I'm always hungry, I must always be fed,
The finger I touch, I soon leave it dead.
People fear my presence, yet I bring no strife,
I'm essential to the balance of life.
What am I?

Hi my name is Harinadh. I’m a flay judge and I’ve been judging public forum debate for three years. I’m pretty comfortable with speed but if I can’t understand you, I can’t flow your argument. Please warrant out all your responses in rebuttal and number them if possible. I don’t evaluate crossfire so if there is anything important you want me to consider, bring it up in one of your speeches. Make sure to summarize the round in your summary speech. I will be looking for weighing throughout your speeches. Don’t make new rebuttals in summary or final, just clearly explain to me why I should be voting for you. Overall, be respectful and have fun!

hi i'm emily! i'm a sophomore at horace mann and i've debated PF for a few years on the natcirc

emilysdebateemail@gmail.com.

make the round clean and easy to evaluate. if you're not a decent person, i'll stop the round, drop you, and give you the worst possible speaks.

how i evaluate: i'll look at weighing/framing first, then evaluate the best link into said weighing. if you are winning the weighing and have a risk of offense, i'll almost certainly vote for you:

- if team A is winning the weighing, i look to their side first. if they're winning their link into the weighing, the ballot is signed.

- if team A isn't winning the link into the weighing, i'll then look to team B's case. if there's offense on team B's case, the ballot is signed.

- if there's no offense in the round, i'll presume neg (this happens pretty rarely tho!)

General Stuff:

- speed is chill but if you're going over 250 wpm send a doc. slow down on implications, analytics, and tags, but you can speed up on the evidence. that being said, i would rather judge a well warranted narrative debate than the dumping of 30 different blippy responses in rebuttal, but debate how you want to debate.

- metaweighing is key. if both teams are reading different weighing mechanisms, tell me which one i should evaluate first, otherwise i am forced to intervene on the weighing debate, and that's not fun. generally, i evaluate prereqs > link ins > probability (if it's not link defense) > mag/scope > timeframe > SOL. that's how i'll evaluate weighing absent metaweighing - so please metaweigh!

- summary and ff have to write my ballot. i have a pretty low threshold for extensions, but i want good warrants extended in the back half speeches for all offense. defense is NOT sticky - if you want me to evaluate defense it must be extended in the back half speeches. i will NOT grant offense on turns if there is no weighing on the turns extended.

- collapsing is a given - if you don't your speaks are capped at a 28. the number of rounds i've judged where people don't collapse is ridiculously high, so please do. please also be smart about your collapse strategy in the back half, your speaks will thank you.

- 2nd rbtl must frontline terminal defense or it's conceded

Prog:

run it at your own risk. i don't have much experience with prog so i am definitely not the best judge at evaluating it.

Speaks:

- speaks will be based on content, strategy, and speaking

- automatic 30s if: you pay me $5+ (per person) before the round starts or buy me bubble tea/a strawberry acai from starbucks.

Hi friends:) plz add me to the email chain if there is one @drpham1126@gmail.com

My name is Doanh Pham, but I go by Rita (she/her). Currently debating policy at University of Kansas as a 2nd year. I'm currently a double major in Political Science and East Asian Studies with a concentration in Chinese. Highschool history wise, I debated PF and did IX at Lee's Summit West Highschool for 4 years there. Was decent, was state champ and did the NSDA jazz, you can look me up at Rita Pham on NSDA. PF is my first love!

Don't be a-holes to each other. I'm a firm believer that debate is about education and pedagogy.

No matter what event, framing then tech into truth plz. Judge direction is important, you should tell me from the beginning how I should evaluate the round/on what framework. FRAMING IS TOP LEVEL. Identity politics and structural violence works well with me over extinction/econ impacts. Also evidence quality is so important to me, I will read it if you highlight its important. Below you can see events spec thoughts:

Policy: I love high theory and critical things. any flavors of Ks are welcomed and if I don't know then I'll try to keep up actively. Some of my fav is Set Col, Cap, Asian Identity/Orentialism, Academy.... I think alt is important but if you don't have one, prove to me why your link makes their aff net worse. Im very good judge for identity politics.

Stuff like wipe out and pess/death good, eh idk how I feel about it but I don't particularly love.

K aff are cool, I'm running one for the 2023-2024 season myself - but try to have it tie the resolution somehow. I'm pretty good on the FW debate, impacts like education is more convincing then fairness for the sake of fairness. This means that I'm pretty ok with seeing how the T flow interacts with K affs if that's your thing!

I am ok at policy stuff (don't run more then 4 off as a policy strat, I will be very annoyed and the args start to lose quality), T-subsets and etcs arent my thing but I will still flow. A good DA with a strong link story is always good. Extinction impacts are overrated but I will always vote on what you tell me to vote on.

Don't love PIX/PICS and stuff that steals opponents' args but justify yourself.

I usually don't cancel teams for certain args and will give them grace since I view debate as a game but you can convince me otherwise!

PF: I am very well versed in this area, and a stern believer that PF should remain like PF. Please don't try to be high theory on your opponents, otherwise go try policy.

Since rounds are only 45 min, I think CX should be binding so you can build args. Be organized, I don't care how many contention or subpoints you have, I'll keep up. I flow most things, make sure you signpost. I think since there are less arguments in PF, you should have quality evidence. Logistics are always welcomed, but if most of the round is false logic then I will decide based on evidence quality even if you did well at framing. Just because the nature of PF is more evidence based.

LD: I never did this event but I understand its about morals/ethics and a mix of pf and policy. Especially in LD, you should center around your value criteria. Ref puff stuff to know more about me but I will judge you base on how you want me to.

Hello Contestants,

This is my 1st time judging, so I am quite excited about this. I am an engineer by profession. Please make sure to speak slowly and clearly. Please be respectful to the other contestants.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly and clearly.

Hi! My name is Kaushik Sathiyandrakumar (he/him). I'm a current junior at Ravenwood High School who has debated under variations of Ravenwood SM. I've had a decent amount of success on the local and national circuit. I've had a good amount of experience as well.

Email for Chain: kaushik.sathiya3@gmail.com.

I consider the most important rule in debate as being safe and respectful. In round, be chill, nice, and respectful before the round. If anyone is there before the round, the same rules apply. If I'm there before round, feel free to talk about anything.

Tech > Truth.

How I evaluate the round:

I evaluate the weighing first. Once I determine which team is winning the weighing, I look at their case first. If that team is also winning their case, the round is over. If that team is losing their case, I will presume for the team that is speaking first. I make this notion because first summary and final focus are objectively the hardest speeches in the round. However, if you disagree with me, feel free to make presumption warrants and I will evaluate them.

General:

I am mostly fine with speed. If you start going over 215 words per minute, please send a speech doc before you start the speech.

Please make evidence exchange quick. If it takes longer than 2 minutes to send a piece of evidence, I'm striking it from the flow.

Speech-by-Speech:

Case:

Feel free to read whatever you want as long as it's not excluding anyone. Make sure to give warrants for every argument that you're reading.

Rebuttal:

Feel free to read how many ever overviews/advantages/disadvantages in rebuttal. The only rule I have about that is being clear. It becomes a line where I prefer quality over quantity. Collapsing in second rebuttal is also cool.

Summary & Final Focus:

These are the most important speeches in the round, so it's important that you do them right. Extend your arguments properly."Extend Kumar 23" isn't a proper extension. Please weigh. Please make your weighing comparative. Please make sure that you respond to all weighing in round. These speeches also must mirror each other. I will not evaluate anything new.

Progressive Argumentation:

I would highly prefer that you do not read progressive argumentation. I do not believe that I have the sufficient ability to evaluate progressive argumentation to a high extent.

Speaker Points:

30: All Turns in Constructive

30: Turning in Chair when Reading a Turn

30: Referencing the Seattle Seahawks or anything related with cricket.

30: Referencing Kanye West, Juice Wrld, Playboi Carti, or Lil Tecca in speech. (Send song recommendations too).

Some of the debaters that have shaped my view of debate are Vedant Misra, Marcus Novak, Anmol Malviya, Ryan Jiang, and William Hong. Read any of their paradigms if you have any questions or preferences related to substance.

I know this was pretty short and doesn't talk about my views about a lot of things, so feel free to email before the round to see my views. You can also ask me in room.

Current undergraduate student at Berkeley with 4 years of experience in PF.

Email is aryanvsawant@berkeley.edu. Add me to the email chain.

TLDR: Everything below is a preference, and not a rule. Following these preferences does NOT guarantee a win. Do what you have to do to win the debate. I will literally evaluate ANYTHING (I mean it) so long as it is intelligible.

Tech > Truth

[1] General:

Spreading: I don't enjoy it. If you're going to spread, send a speech-doc.

Signposting: Yes, signpost.

Crystallization: Not super important for me personally, though it can be beneficial if the round is getting muddy.

Final Focus (the last speech, not only PF but other events like Parli). Given that you're not making new (particularly no substantive arguments, requesting to look at cards for example will be evaluated) arguments, I will evaluate FF.

I don't flow cross. I listen, sometimes. For Parli: I don't flow POIs, but I DO flow POOs.

Make unique arguments, I love unique arguments

I enjoy charismatic humor (have fun). Don't be disrespectful to your opponents or your teammate(s). Humor won't (by itself) win you the round, but it's a massive plus. Besides, we're all here to have a good time. If you debate like your college applications don't depend on it, you'll find that you'll have much, much more fun.

I enjoy disclosing, but sometimes it takes me forever to go over the flow and review both sides, forcing competitors to wait for me to make a decision. This adds a ton of pressure on me to finish up early that frankly does neither side justice. So unless a tournament explicitly requests that I disclose or I have already made my decision, I don't disclose. If I am on a panel in outrounds, I almost always disclose. Feel free to ask me post-round if I'm disclosing and I'll lyk.

+ 1.5 Speaks for Team(s) That:

• Collapse on a "try or die" framework
• Argue for a ROTB argument on feminism/women's rights
• Introduce a new side about debate I didn't already know about (whatever that means lol)

Do all three earnestly and I will award 30 speaks.

/

[2] Theory:

Ts: I like Ts, -- and topicality debate-- a lot. That being said: Worry less about the "structure" of a T shell and more about the actual argument you're making. You can spend time going down the voters, issues, etc but at the end of the day I'm there to vote for an argument, so make it tangible and easy to vote for. I generally default RVIs.

Ks: I've run feminism/sexism-related ROTB Ks in high school but haven't worked with more of the standard Ks such as Cap Ks, Set Col, etc. I wrote my college application essays on an experience regarding running sexism ROTB K's, so I'd say I have a pretty decent understanding of how to run a K. While I can't promise that I'll be able to keep up, I'd definitely like to learn more about K debate and so I'm generally open to them.

DAs: I like them when they're run by themself in the 1NC. Makes the round cleaner and easier to flow. In other words, I find judging a DA enjoyable when the DA is the entirety of Neg's case.

/

[3] Hot Takes:

[A] Harmful content should be defined VERY NARROWLY. I believe that it's very easy to define uncomfortable arguments as harmful, and that they need to be properly defined in order to protect people, while concurrently allowing free expression within an academic setting. I do not require trigger warnings [unless tournament rules specify otherwise]. I will drop a debater for harmful content if:

1. It goes against the tournament rules. That's not in my hands, so make sure to read the tournament handbook.

2. You're being disrespectful or outright rude to your opponent(s), partner, or judge(s).

[B] Low-point wins should not be a rarity. Speaks and a pure flow debate have absolutely nothing to do with another. You can be both a good speaker and a good flow debater, and you can also be a terrible speaker and a good flow debater. I do not and will never understand why some circuits discourage low-point wins.

[C] If you make a frontline or response that goes unresponded to, you should not be obliged to extend it throughout the round, because it is the burden of your opponent to flow it and respond to it. For example, if your opponent doesn't respond to your rebuttal speech frontlines in first summary, you do not have to bring it up in second summary. You should bring it up in final focus (the last speech) so I know that you're going for that argument. Is it always the best strategy? Probably not, since there's a chance I may have not flowed it. That being said, the burden is not on you.

/

[4] Random, but Important to Me: The inflection between theory and small schools

As a debater from a small school that began the speech and debate program at my school, I'm very, very aware of the financial and educational difficulties that prevent small schools from accessing the same amount of resources as bigger schools. Big schools can compete at tournaments 5 times the number of rounds a small school can compete in. Not only do they receive more "practice" in competition, but they have big prep teams that have the ability to share and pay for information. In other words, when big schools compete against small schools, the rounds hold a greater value for small schools because they are one of the few opportunities throughout the year that they have to compete within the national circuit.

With all of that being said, if you are a school that chooses to run theory/K/any tech argument on a small school, I will vote for the theory (assuming it's winning: your opponents legitimately do not respond to or defend against what you're running). I've wrestled with this issue for a long time, but I've (you could honestly convince me otherwise on any given day) come to the conclusion that theory is a part of circuit debate, whether or not I like it. So yes, invitationals matter a lot to small schools because there are only so many they can compete within an year. But I am also of the opinion that basic theory knowledge is necessary for national circuit debate, and that it is essential for a pure trad team to face a theory round in order for the small school to work toward becoming better at circuit debate. How would they go about that given the lack of educational resources? Reddit, Discord, and asking others etc is probably the best option at the moment. But I think that the benefits of facing such a round, especially for a novice team or a small school is necessary for the long term and future rounds, since they will have to ultimately hit a tech round someday.

I am not a fan of "oppressor vs. oppressed" hierarchies within a non-technical sphere (outside of the scope of theory). Please do not try to convince me you are a small school or a big school, it doesn't matter. I've seen millionaires attending Title IV schools and low-income students attending private college prep boarding schools. I've seen it all. This is why I intentionally left out my definition for the two terms-- it opens up a can of worms that is really unnecessary.

If you are running theory on a small school, all I ask is that you do it for a legitimate reason (plagiarism, etc). If you run something wild like a really badly, convoluted theory that has no response by your opponent, I will vote for you. But not only would I feel terrible about myself after that, but I think that would just be a sucky round to judge overall. It would be off-putting rather than productive. The choice is yours.*

If you are a small school or a team that doesn't know how to respond to theory: Just respond to the argument. No matter if you call it a K, T, or a DA, it's always an argument at the end of the day. Debate like you always do, and don't let your opponents intimidate you with a bunch of technical jargon. That is the best advice I can give you for now.

* If a newer/smaller team can successfully argue such theory is abusing the system (ie not conducive of an educational environment), I almost always default to the RVI (the team that argues that the theory is abusing the system).

/

I'm constantly changing this paradigm over the tournaments I judge. If you ever have a question about something, disagree with my paradigm, and or want to offer thoughts on how I could improve how I judge, feel free to lmk!

If you have any questions, my email is aryanvsawant@berkeley.edu

Pls put me on the email chain - imad.shaikh037@gmail.com

I currently do LD at Clements High School but have done PF

I am a tech/flow judge, but Im fine w wtv but ill prefer it not to be boring.

General Stuff:

1] Tech>Truth -> As a judge, im not going to create any scenario where i will showcase judge intervention. A solid claim, warrant, and impact will automatically be eval true unless refuted.

2] Even with docs, I will be flowing. If you are unclear and I miss an argument, it will be ur fault. But im overall fine w wtv speed u want

LD :

You can read wtv u want but for my specific knowledge/judging capability:

Policy - 1

Trad - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 1

K - 2

Trix - 4

Debates a game, so read wtv it takes to win the game.

Speaks:

I'm a speaks fairy, but pls try to be coherent/clear as it'll make it sm easier to evaluate the round. Spreading is chill. If you are abusive, racist, sexist, etc. I will give auto L25

english no good

lay judge

i vote off cross

competing interps>reasonability because i am unreasonable

Hello , I have judged several rounds and have a good understanding of debate theory and strategy.

When it comes to judging, I prioritize clarity, organization, and persuasion. I believe that a debater's job is to present a clear and convincing argument, and it's my job as a judge to evaluate how well they accomplish that goal. In my view, the most persuasive arguments are those that are backed up by evidence and logical reasoning, and that address the core issues of the debate.

I value fairness and respect in the debate community, and I expect all debaters to adhere to those principles as well. I also believe that the debaters should be civil and professional, both in their speeches and in their interactions with one another. Any instances of disrespectful behavior will be taken into account in my decision.

In terms of argumentation, I am open to all kinds of arguments, including policy, value, and fact-based arguments. However, I am not interested in hearing arguments that are discriminatory or disrespectful. I will not tolerate any form of hate speech or discriminatory remarks.

When it comes to evidence, I prefer quality over quantity. I value well-researched and relevant evidence that directly supports a debater's argument. Evidence that is taken out of context, misused, or irrelevant will not carry weight in my decision.

In terms of style, I appreciate debaters who are confident, articulate, and poised. However, style alone will not win the round for a debater. Substance and sound argumentation are key.

Finally, I believe that every round is a learning experience, and I encourage debaters to ask questions and seek feedback after the round. I will do my best to provide constructive criticism and offer suggestions for improvement.

I look forward to a fair and respectful debate. Good luck to all debaters!

Hello,

I'm an parent lay judge ,and I'd like to share my judging preferences:

1. Clarity and Conciseness: - I kindly request that you articulate your arguments clearly and directly. While I'm open to a faster pace of speech, I'd appreciate it if you refrain from spreading. If you do speak faster than conversational, please ensure that you slow down at crucial points you'd like me to follow closely.

2. Robust Argumentation: - I value well-structured arguments that are the focal point of your presentation. Please present your case with clear, concise points, and support them with relevant details and evidence. Summarizing your key points at the end would be greatly appreciated.

In essence, I encourage a respectful and enjoyable debating environment. Let's have a constructive and engaging debate together. Have fun!

Looking forward to the debate.

I am a parent judge. I believe this is a great learning platform for all of us. I look forward to learning from your ideas, arguments and reasoning.

1. Greet everyone and introduce yourselves.

2. Demonstrate respect and professionalism. Adhere to time limits.

3. Be original and be comfortable. I will adjust to your style of presenting.

Please highlight maximum 3 main arguments for your case along with 3 supporting evidences. Additionally, pay attention to other team's arguments and respond accordingly.

My decision will be based on the strength of reasoning, impacts, rebuttal and weighing in Summary Speech(SS) and Final Focus(FF). Any additional weighing that is not stated in Summary Speech will be quantified in my choice. No new cards or arguments should be made in Final Focus(FF).

Hope you will have great learning experience and have fun!

I do have some speech and debate experience.I'm not lay but also not super technical

Don't use too much technical stuff - if you do, please explain it in short otherwise the argument will be lost on me.

Here are my some preferences -

Speak clearly and at a moderate pace. If you typically speak quickly, then adjust your speed to match my judging style. If I am unable to follow your arguments and comprehend what you are saying, then you will not be successful in the round.

I prefer arguments that are backed by empirical evidence, rather than those that rely solely on emotional appeals. You will not win the round by trying to persuade me through an emotional argument.

I appreciate a well-planned and logically sound case. I prefer to see a clear connection between your points and ideas.

While I am capable of taking notes during the debate, I may not be as skilled at doing so as someone who judges Public Forum Debate (PFD) regularly.

It is important to remain respectful during the debate. While assertiveness is acceptable, actions such as screaming, belittling opponents, eye-rolling, head-shaking, and showing contempt are not appropriate. Even if you win the round, you may receive a low score if you display such behavior.

Good luck.

I'm an undergraduate student at Middlebury College where I compete on the debate team in British Parliamentary. During my high school debate career, I placed top 4 at nationals in Lincoln Douglas, and I'm a two time Lincoln Douglas state champion. I also attained state champion for United States Extemporaneous Speaking, and I competed for two years in Public Forum.

email (for chains ONLY): honeydew.kira@gmail.com

pronouns: she/her/they/them

General debate preferences:

Tech > truth, I focus on the arguments made in the round. I won't make the arguments for you. I hate interfering my thoughts in the round, you should be doing the work for me.

I'm okay with speed, but don't be abusive. I can understand fast speech (probably 8/10), but I think that if you are speaking fast, you have to be making good, purposeful arguments. I'm personally not a huge fan of using it just to try to confuse your opponent.

I think this goes without saying but don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Hate does not have a place in debate.

While I am not necessarily a flow judge, I still think flowing is important. If your opponent drops something, point it out and blow it up. A response that hasn't been interacted with can create an easy path to the ballot.

I want warrants for cards; don't just tell me to extend your evidence. A clearly warranted card will always mean more than telling me to prefer your article because the person who wrote attended a prestigious school. If you ever say "I don't know know, that's what the study/card says", it's probably a bad sign. Also, I mostly don't flow card names, I often miss them in constructive (unless you emphasize in later speeches) because I focus more on what you're arguing than what the source is. Thus, saying "extend Washington '22" doesn't really mean anything to me. You have to do more work than that.

Weighing and voters are never a bad thing, don't be afraid to use them.

I will read cards if you ask for me to call for them. Otherwise, I probably won't unless it is very important in the round. If you know that your opponent is misusing evidence and tell me to call for that card, I will. If I find that someone is blatantly abusing evidence, depending on the severeness, I will consider voting them down just for that.

In my opinion, debate should always be a productive space where competitors can learn and grow and thus treat their opponent with respect. If you violate this and are explicitly rude, I will be very hesitant to vote for you. Even if you are going against someone who is competing in varsity for the first time, you should treat them with kindness and respect.

I DO NOT WEIGH NEW ARGUMENTS MADE LATE IN THE ROUND. Of course, extending arguments or explaining why your original argument/response still stands is fine. I think that new arguments made past this are inherently abusive because 1. the function of those latter speeches is not to continue to make new arguments 2. it's unfair to your opponent because they cannot respond efficiently/effectively that late.

If you include a reference to K-pop in any of your speeches, I will give you +0.1 speaker points :)

I have specific comments on the types of debate I am most familiar with below, if your type of debate is not listed, please refer to general preferences above. My specific preferences ONLY apply to those types of debate.

Lincoln Douglas:

I'm fine with K's and most other miscellaneous policy arguments as long as you can explain them and why they are preferrable to vote for in round. Don't run a Cap K and say to vote for it just because capitalism is bad. HOWEVER, I normally don't like counterplans. This is just a personal judging preference; I think it can be an unfair burden for the affirmative to have to attack a bunch of alternatives that the neg can come up with because it heavily skews the debate towards the negative (since there are tons of other things that could potentially resolve a problem). I find that they are often provided without warrants and thus not competitive. While it not abusive in all cases, I think that it often can be. Just because one alternative might be good doesn't deny that the resolution could also be beneficial to pursue; if you want to use a CP, you have to warrant why it is preferrable, not just why it can also resolve the issue. I am okay with a different option being used to show that it has higher effectiveness than the stance the aff takes as long as it is warranted. If you are just listing off a bunch of alts, that's probably a bad sign. But since it is a nuanced topic, depending on the way it's run/attacked, I might be fine with it even if you don't run it in the way I prefer. STILL, I WILL NOT VOTE YOU DOWN JUST FOR HAVING A CP. BUT if your opponent argues in the round why the CP is abusive to the burden of the affirmative (having to argue against too many random solutions, not focus of topic, etc), I am likely to buy that.

I'm a strong believer that solvency doesn't necessarily need to be discussed in Lincoln Douglas debate since it is based on morality. HOWEVER, if you are running an argument that relies on solvency (ie: the affirmative is moral because minimizing environmental harms reduces oppression), it is not something you can get around. In my opinion, some degree of solvency towards (in this example) reducing environmental harms has to be guaranteed, otherwise it doesn't make sense to vote for the affirmative without access to impacts. As long as your case doesn't revolve around solvency, you do not need to show that everything is solved for me to vote for you.

I'm also a strong believer that the job of the negative is to disprove the affirmative, not outline a counterplan or solve for the issues that affirmative outlines. How each negative debater can go about disproving the affirmative is up to the interpretations provided in the round, but the default for the negative is not to advocate for the opposite of the affirmative or solve for the aff's issues.

I will never vote someone down because they use a philosopher that committed some irrelevant harmful action/ideas. I believe that philosophy can be separated from the philosopher because, after all, philosophy is based on random bodies of thoughts on human action, not just one person. Even if Locke said or did something harmful, that doesn't change what his moral theory said or change that it has been beneficial, creating a whole body of philosophy still used in modern day. (But general criticisms are fine, just not ones saying that a philosopher said something sexist)

I absolutely LOVE value/criterion turns. If you can find a way to turn your opponent's framework, that is a wonderful way to outline your path to the ballot.

Value criterion debate is huge part of what makes Lincoln Douglas special compared to other types of debate. Please don't forget about it in the round; I am a huge fan of a well-functioning framework.

Public Forum:

WAY more than Lincoln Douglas, warranting is incredibly important for me in Public Forum. Especially if both sides have evidence which disagrees with each other, I want you to provide analysis not only on why your evidence stands more but also on why your opponent's falls. I will not do the work for you. Weighing is also incredibly important since Public Forum defaults on a cost benefit analysis framework. Thus, if one side can show me more benefits/harms it becomes far easier to vote for them.

Avoid hyper-specific topic jargon if I am in the back of your round. Although I competed in two years of Public Forum, I spent the bulk of my time involved with Lincoln Douglas Debate. While I will most likely be familiar with the basics of the topic, I will not know all of the lingo.

I outline most of the rest of my preferences in my general debate preferences, so refer back to those.

If you have questions about a specific preferences, feel free to ask me at any point.

TL:DR - Don't be abusive with evidence or make new arguments late in round. Be respectful. Use weighing/voters and warrant your evidence. Ask me to call for cards you think are abusive/need to be read. I am not a fan of using speed just to confuse your opponent.

I'm a lay judge. Please speak slow and be clear.

I'm a parent judge. Please speak slowly

3 years pf with bc academy in vancouver (broke at the prestigious mstoc - dropped in doubles)

jonnyspecter08@gmail.com for the chain

tl;dr

tech > truth

dont be offended if im not constantly flowing my topic knowledge for february is pretty decent

cams on please :)

general

sorta okay with speed but anything over 230wpm ill need a doc

signpost.

frontline anything ur going for in 2nd rebuttal and any offense from 1st rebuttal

i hate case extension in 1st rebuttal i wont flow it, don't need to hear what your partner said 8 mins ago

warranted ev> warranted analysis> unwarranted ev> bs analysis

collapse please

i wont flow blippy extensions thru make extensions clear (threshold for that is lower for ms/novice)

i've voted on turns before and find myself doing so quite often so feel free to go for them but please weigh them

weigh comparatively and metaweigh if you can

I dont flow card names so pls dont just extend the author w/o telling me what they say

presume first if no offense comes out of ff

Framework

unwarranted frameworks arent frameworks they're just bad weighing. default util

the framework debate should be happening every subsequent speech after the framework is read unless someone tells me otherwise (though i dont love the idea of respond in next constructive - won't affect me if you read warrants for it tho)

the framework extensions has to come with it's warrants to be evaluated, restating it does nothing

if the other side links in, dont just drop framework: try to weigh the links (unless both links are pretty clean/pretty bad)

im open to pre-fiat frameworks, but just explain your warrants well. tell me why i value the discourse you promote and how picking you up helps (which ig you could implicate on a post-fiat level somehow)

Evidence

So down for an evidence challenge. As a debater myself i often dont fully realize an evidence violation is happening until the round just ended so if you wanna challenge as im tryna type up an rfd go for it.

Generally speaking, why are you clipping or bsing ev? If it's not what the author says or if the ev just isnt there dont lie, someone will find out somehow.

auto 20 L if i find you with bad evidence ethics. this excludes general paraphrasing (even tho i think it's a bad ethic). only if you horribly misconstrue the author will i drop u (please run a paraphrasing shell if you catch someone paraphrasing).

More often than not, i won't call for cards unless anyone asks me too. Again, i'm willing to intervene even after round if someone tells me to look at something and i find some sort of evidence violation going on.

dont send us to a weird link that wants us to download something or whatever, find a way to give the direct link.

Prog

read any shell u want theory is fine, i find most frivolous shells funny.

personally, paraphrasing/disclo both bad. will still vote on disclo/round reports tho. default competing interps/no rvi's unless told otherwise

just cus you win the rvi debate doesn't mean you win theory in general. if they read a ci that's still offense for them. my understanding for rvis is if the team responding to theory wins defense and wins yes rvis, they win. even if they lose rvis they can still win off of the ci so don't just engage with the rvi debate and call it a day.

if content isn't graphic, i lean towards no trigger warning theory, but this shouldn't effect the way i evaluate it, i just think it's an easy way out for teams to not deal with certain sensitive args they dont have prepped out.

probably not your best judge for the k, feel free to try. i have a very basic understanding of cap, security, and colonialism lit (probably least comfortable with colonialism).

i prefer and am more comfortable with hearing topical negs, i think id really mishandle identity.

no tricks ill leave and drop (idek what they are so it wont be beneficial for you in any way)

Other

make cross funny and chill i like to be entertained otherwise ill be on my phone. 30 speaks if u make me laugh.

usually start at 28.5 and work around there.

it's ok to cuss just dont target it at me or ur opponents.