• Debating cannot be separated from rhetoric, as such, I expect to be persuaded during a round and I do believe this will occur more efficiently when speakers enunciate their words. Simply put, please adjust your speech pace to one I can follow so I do not miss salient points.
• While I appreciate debate terminology, I suggest that their usage be minimal. This owes to the fact that these terms are usually a means of pointing out to the judge what a speaker is aiming towards at a particular time. If I do not understand the term, there's a possibility that I will then be unable to follow your contentions as you are directing me to. However, if complex and essential debate terminologies must be employed, invest a short sentence towards explaining what they entail.
• I weigh Impacts on various mechanisms. It will bode the speaker well to explicitly mention the mechanism with which they outweigh their opponent.
• Do not merely cite authorities, make an effort to tell me why that authority is a reliable one.
• When referring to your opponent's speech, clearly point out the contention you are addressing. Additionally, when you say that your opponent conceded to a point, do mention what it is and how that occurred, if necessary.
• Be respectful during a round.
• By all means, persuade me by telling me why your contention is true, via comprehensive analysis; give me the impact(s) of said contention(s) and why that outweighs those of your opponent.
• Finally, do enjoy your rounds and aim at learning after each one.

I'm a career coach who has coached/judged WSD at nationals for several years now. I try to judge the debate on what was said. I am looking for a theme or team line. I appreciate it when debaters simplify the debate in rebuttal speeches. I expect emotional appeals designed to make me feel something in and amongst all the arguments presented. I also find the team line useful because it helps anchor the story that unfolds in the debate. World schools is a conversation. It's about turn-taking, respect, composure, and a limited amount of arguments...In other words, the best 'conversationalists' should accrue enough points for their team to win. I enjoy the format of WSD and I appreciate how it is different than other styles of debate. Most debates are close at nationals; just don't let the line-by-line overwhelm the pressing need for you to make me feel something. I'm a former policy debater...so i'll get the arguments on the flow. I just think that the 'face' we create in addition to our standard offense/defense is super important in WSD because it really humanizes the debate for me and helps me see and feel things that I might not see or feel in other forms of debate.

Hi everyone,

If you are going to make an email chain please add me: vaggarwal@collegiateschool.org

I'm currently a high school pf debater. I will flow everything in the round except for crossfire. If you need me to evaluate it, bring it up in a speech.

The most important thing for me is strong warranting. If you read a card but do not explain its importance well I am not likely to weigh it heavily. Also, winning a strong argument commandingly is always better than having shaky offense on multiple, so collapse whenever you deem necessary (on offense and defense).

Signposting and roadmaps: For every speech after 1st rebuttal please give a brief off-time roadmap. Simply saying which side you are starting on is enough. Err on the side of over-signposting rather than making me struggle to know where you are. Also, try not to jump around too much as it can be hard to follow.

If you want me to evaluate something, it must be in final focus, and if it's in final focus it must be in summary.

Tech > Truth

Hi there,
I’m Mitchell Akinjayeju, preferred pronouns are she/ her. I am a regular debater and public speaker. During the course of my debating career, I’ve been able to gather ample judging experiences and also skills necessary for judging different debating formats and styles.

Conflicts: None

PERSONAL NOTE:

I prioritize a fair, positive and highly engaging room. I also hold in high regards time management, role fulfillment, good structural speeches, amongst others. It is also necessary and advised to engage with context, framing and arguments of other teams even if you do not agree with their speeches, providing a counter factual in your own speech where deemed necessary.

I take account of everything a speaker says irregardless of the pace of speech due to human diversity and nature although, I prefer medium paced speeches as it makes the flow of point taking easier.

Special Consideration for Virtual Debates:

Cameras should be kept on at all times. In instances where you can’t keep your camera on, do well to communicate that and there’ll be an exception.

Thank you.

email for chains: lydiaaklilu22@gmail.com

currently a junior at garland high school in ld. qualified to the toc and tfa

you can do whatever in front of me, although the debates i enjoy most include k debate, phil, and theory. however im comfortable evaluating most things so ill do my best to adapt to the round.

most importantly have fun and be nice!

I prioritize well proven cases and realistic impacts.

I also encourage the use of good speech rhetoric in delivery.

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.

LD Paradigm- I compete in nfald currently so I like to encourage kids to have fun and do what you like in round all that I ask is that you're nice and please extend~~~

PF Paradigm- I currently coach Public Forum at the middle school level, and I'm the most familiar with this event because I competed in it the longest in High school and have consistently been in public forum judge pools since 2017. I don't really care what you go for in round especially at the varsity level, I just don't want progressive arguments being ran strategically so that your opponent doesn't understand what you're doing and making the debate a wash especially whenever they're done poorly, so please be willing to be flexible and make rounds as simple or complicated as they need to be. That being said I try and keep my voting reserved to whatever the is established in the round regardless of my own opinions. Don't make me do any work in terms of judging the competitors should be telling me how I need to vote.

Congress paradigm- I want chambers to be run by the debators as much as possible I don't care about much as long as you dont go over alotted time I'm very flexible on augmenting nit picky things for the sake of convenience just dont spend 20 minutes going over things. Typically I recommend just defaulting to the rules but settling things quickly via majority vote is also okay as long as the ruling is fair.

I coach policy and public forum debate at Success Academy Midtown West Middle School. I coach with BDL and Able2Shine. Much of my paradigm is based on a MS debate level. I have been in forensics over a decade; four years of PF, two of Parliamentary, and four years of IPDA experience competing. I can speak directly to older teams about my paradigm if they have questions.

DISCLOSURE: I have chronic dry eye. In most situations this is not an issue, but I know how frustrating it can be too look up and see your judge isn't paying attention or is falling asleep. If you see me closing or covering my eyes or even crying please understand it's a medical issue and not indicative of my attention span or emotional state.

dana.bell@saschools.org for the chain.

My experience is mainly in IPDA, Public Forum, and Parliamentary Debate, with Policy being well understood but not a favorite. I prefer educational rounds with an emphasis on accessibility.

Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win. I love threading a value throughout the debate to help me weigh. It's the Pubfo in me. Sorry.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons (voting issues) you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. I flow it probably more than anything else said in the round. I will consider the ability of you to actually understand what you say. I want cards to be read, not recited.

4. POFO: I love framework debates and definitions debates. Emphasis on definitions debates. Squirrels are one of my favorite animals. Observations, Ks, have fun but make it accessible POLICY: Love T, love K, don't hate Performance. All I ask is you commit. A dropped K or T arg is a big waste of the round and it's not a reason I'll drop you, but it could be what sets up your downfall. Be cautious!

5. I can understand fast speaking. BUT KEEP TAGS AND AUTHOR SLOW. I'd rather you present four excellent arguments than eight ok ones. I don't literally "weigh" the arguments in quantity.

6. Be kind and speak with inflection. I dislike being able to tell that you don't really understand what you're saying. This is a debate, not a speedreading contest.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters. Time that I have to spend shuffling my flows and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you.Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

11. Body language is a language; people watching can understand when you're being patronizing and don't respect who you're speaking to.You are debating even when you are not speaking.

12. You're meant to be making this debate for the sake of society, not each other. Excessive "alphabet soup" and a general ignorance towards the fact there may be someone in the room who doesn't understand the very niche language of policy debate is an annoyance to me.

13. PF specific: I love a good framework but if there's an egregiously strong point outside of it I'll listen to "forget framework" arguments. I prefer analytics over reading cards 1000%. I usually vote for the more educational team. Also, it's "Public" forum, not Policy. (REAL) Spreading with no email chain in PF is a typical auto-drop (if that makes you want to strike me and this is a MS-HS tournament, I doubt you actually spread that fast and I mean that for collegiate teams.)

Hello, I'm Makena, and I am a former debater and debate judge. I've debated competitively for 7 years throughout middle and high school, mainly in the formats of Parliamentary and LD, also competing in a few speech tournaments. I've judged debates for 5 years in local debate leagues, also teaching workshops in Advanced Debate and Parliamentary Debate Strategy.

Kritiks, Debate Theory arguments, and Topicality are all acceptable to me when judging, but I prefer arguments that are free of extreme positions and unrealistic hypotheticals. If a debater is going to use any non-traditional debate strategies in a round I'm judging, I prefer for the arguments to be fair to the opposing team and leave room for traditional debate. In the event that you decide to pursue an extreme position, Kritik, or anything of that nature, do it right, and don't exploit less experienced debaters. Only get progressive if it makes sense, and don't destroy the purpose of having a debate by being unethical.

As a judge, I value logic, creativity, complexity, diversity of ideas, open-mindedness, and unconventionality. I dislike extremism without concessions, and I really dislike spreading. In an LD debate, I'd appreciate a viable framework. Please be truthful-- I understand that debate itself is supposed to be strategic and illusory, but in my opinion, the literal purpose of having a debate is to learn something, so don't rob me of that. If you teach me something, whether that be strategy/theory/tricks, a new perspective on something, or even just information I haven't heard, that will work in your favor.

Email | makena.bennett@myds.us

hi

truth>tech

if you run fem you win the round. 30 speaks.

play 21 savage, kendrick lamar, ice spice for 30 speaks.

email chain: amundogreen@gmail.com

Hi! I'm Ricky (she/they) and I'm a third year at Cal Poly SLO majoring in Ethnic Studies. I was a Congress kid, so if I get put into another event for judging please keep that in mind :)

I am open to theory and things like Ks, the largest thing is just spreading for me. If you spread too fast I will have trouble keeping up but you don't have to talk super slow just be mindful.PLEASE GIVE ME A COPY OF YOUR CASE IF THIS IS PF/LD/CX, etc.If this is Speech/Congress PLEASEdon't use any cookie cutter speech openers like "My opponents arg is like a cone of cotton candy, it seems nice at first but when you take a closer look, it's fluff and no substance' plssss thats so corny lol.

Also if this is Congress, PLEASE CLASH! Clash is what makes the event fun and exciting to watch.If you PO more then likely you will be getting a 3-5.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round!

Summit ‘ 26

He/Him

add me the chain or make a speechdrop b4 the rd

Connor.h.chau@gmail.com

Current sophomore at Summit high school debated LD and parli sophomore year and PF freshman year (ily Adam)

Big influences/ the goats: Mabel Reiger, Sai Karavadi, Judah Jones, Ari X and like others

tech> truth

will NOT vote any isms or impact turns to ivis if you do that's a hot L25

good for speed just send the doc I flow off the doc anyways

TLDR-

K- 1

K affs-1

T/Theory-2 good for any kind of t/theory debate on any spectrum

Larp/policy- 2

phill-3/4

tricks-3 if done right/ 5 if done badly

friv theory- strike

Trad-1/2

I actually do not care what round I end up judging I think judge adaption is a meh skill (that’s why prefs exist) which means whatever round you end up giving me is what I’ll adjudicate to my best ability ie if it’s phill v phill I’ll know less but if it’s k v phill or k v policy I’d be better, My philosophy is that I’m here for whoever is debating which means I’ll adapt to YOU. Granted rfd may take a wee bit longer

I prob do have some internal bias tho ie since I debate mainly K rn which means I’ll understand the K team better then the phill team so err on over explanation regardless

auto 30 if you have ur pet look at the screen when u speak

+ .2 if you bump good music pre round

+.5 be nice!!!

speaks- I am a speaks fairy like probably I feel bad giving low speaks I err 28.4+

I've been debating for about five years now and am well-versed in Lincoln-Douglas Debate and Parliamentary Debate.

Parliamentary:

• Don't use statistics as a crux for your entire argument. You can provide statistics, but be sure to include links and explain logically why your point stands.
• If it's a value debate, tie it back to your value and value criterion.I will vote mainly on how your case/args connect to your framework.

Lincoln-Douglas:

• I heavily vote for your framework. If you don't provide me with a viable framework or any explanation as to how your arguments connect back to it, I have nothing to vote on.
• Again, when you provide cards, provide the source and also provide analysis. You can provide evidence, but it means nothing unless you have an actual link.

Please be respectful, and do not spread! Excited to meet you all.

I evaluate debaters based on the quality of their arguments, delivery, and overall persuasiveness. Some of the things that i prioritize the most are:

-

• Substance: Strong cases with clear warrants, well-defined impacts, and sound evidence (facts, statistics, expert opinions) are key.
• Style: Clear, concise, and engaging delivery is important. Effective use of rebuttals and logical flow of arguments are valued.
• Evidence: Credible and relevant evidence from reputable sources is preferred. While emotional appeals can be used, they should be supported by logic and evidence.
• Speak clearly, i don't mind if you speed as long as you are being clear on what are you saying. If I can’t get your arguments down and understand what are you saying then you will have an issue at the moment of convincing me about your case.

I really enjoy it when you expand on framework and give me a clear understanding of why you or your team should win the round.

I have done a lot of different times of debates I know the basic rules of the different times of debates.

Overall just have a nice clean and respectful round.

1 - larp, t

1.5 - k

2 - theory

3/4 - phil (not analytical)

5/strike - tricks, analytical phil

policy

• strength of internal link should be the go-to when weighing the DA vs the aff. timeframe is the tie-breaker.

• functional + textual competition is where i lean, but always down for a good competition debate.

• judge kick is not an option unless the 2NR explicitly makes it one.

• other issues perm is broken against process CPs w/ non-germane net benefits. usually requires competition to resolve.

topicality

• will almost never vote on t-nebel, subsets, substantial, etc. minute losses in precision probably do not outweigh debateability, although you can make args otherwise.

• a good t debate can be fun, but usually isn’t. do ev comparison.

k (neg)

• most Ks should lose to framework + perm double bind. that requires you to establish some other mechanism for competition.

• links don’t have to be specific from the 1NC, but should be contextualized in the 2NR. otherwise, the perm becomes quite convincing.

• perm other instances is underutilized and i think it destroys most Ks.

• “extinction is white futurity” or some variation of that argument requires you to actually win some case defense. you cannot just broadly assert this without disproving the 1AC’s scenario.

k (aff)

• most affs in LD should lose to t-framework. equally debated, i think im 80-20 for framework.

• the aff needs to either defend a counterinterp that resolves a large amount of the neg’s offense OR go all in on destroying debate with a robust theory of power.

• is fairness an impact? sure, but it only becomes persuasive when the impact turn is mitigated. otherwise, risk of antiblackness, subject formation, [insert k buzzword] should probably outweigh fairness.

• TVA + SSD genuinely takes out most k affs and is quite persuasive to me.

theory

• condo is probably good. condo cannot be a blip in the 1ar and be a winning argument. do not drop condo.

• if a CP comptes, it is probably legitimate. con con or other terrible CPs are probably exceptions.

phil

• don’t have much experience here. i can probably follow it if it’s carded and you make actual args w/ warrants.

• it was recently brought to my attention that topic ks probably destroy phil affs. i probably agree.

tricks/analytical phil

• terrible for this.

Abram de Bruyn - abram.debruyn@saschools.org He/him/his

BA, Performance Studies | Victoria University, Australia

MA, Philosophy and Education | Teachers College, Columbia University

Experienced Ethics Bowl and Parliamentary Debate Coach. Judged Policy, never competed.

My approach to judging debate is to recognize each format as a distinct game variant and to honor the rules for scoring. I do not award my decision to the smartest or most knowledgeable person(s) in the room but the team with the winning argument(s). Sportsmanship counts for something, and in close decisions can be decisive. I enjoy and appreciate creative and philosophical arguments which shed new light or perspectives on a topic. However, these can also be a distraction for me if the claims being made are less than clear (or the possibilities for mis-interpretation too juicy). I will want to engage with the ideas instead of weighing the arguments. Always remember, contests can be won or lost by how clearly impacts are communicated in conclusion. Tell me how to vote and why, this is your ultimate challenge.

I have some judging experience, however, consider me a lay judge while making arguments. Speak at a resonable speed in order to make your speech more comprehensible.

General

• I don't care if you sit or stand/wear formal clothes etc., all that doesn’t matter to me.
• give trigger warnings- if another team does not feel comfortable with an argument, change it. you can argue whether trigger warnings are good/bad for debate/society, but don't proactively cause harm on someone else.
• defense isn't sticky.
• Flex prep is cool and tag team speeches/CX is fine with me.
• absent any offense in the round, I'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics.

Case

• Have fun. Do whatever you want to do.
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e., extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal are BS and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower.
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded.
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability.

Summary

• for an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended
• please extend warrants, I don't want to have a flood of blimpy and unwarranted claims on my flow at the end of your summary.
• this also goes for arguments that are conceded.
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice. However, at this point, it’s probably not terminal defense if it was originally, but it’ll at least mitigate their impact.
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side.
• Defense must also be extended.

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before, it’s annoying for me to go look back and see if you really said that, plus it’s just abusive.

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though.

I'm a high school debater in public forum, pronouns he/him. Please add me to the email chain/google doc. Send speech doc if spreading - jewart@collegiateschool.org.

Here's a quick summary of what I'm looking for in a PF round + some important miscellaneous notes (skip to the latter if you're short on time)

Constructive:Clearly labeled contentions, subpoints, impacts, etc. Stress stats so it's easier for me to note on my flow. I don't mind spreading here as long as I have the case file to refer to.

Rebuttal: Try to attack everything you can, not just the impact or one of the links, line by line is much appreciated. Signpost what part of the flow you're talking about clearly. If your team is speaking second, frontline and address any turns. Using debate terminology to give yourself more time is fine by me. Weigh if you have the time and, if you need to, give me some idea of a framework. I'll default to util if there's nothing after this point.

Summary:If your team is speaking first, I think this is the most important and difficult speech in the round (coming from someone who's a second speaker lol). Collapse, if you can, to make the round cleaner, then frontline. Signposting and extend. Essentially, collapse, extend, and weigh to win. I won't vote off new arguments in second summary and beyond.

Final Focus:Summarize the round and make sure that everything is made as clear as possible. Don't just tell me that you're winning on magnitude or timeframe. Explain why I should value magnitude more than probability, for example, if you haven't already done so.

Theory:

I don't care for disclo or anything frivolous. Everything else is probably fine, and I'll probably default to competing interps. I have no experience with Ks, so I'd advise you not to run them. However, if you choose to (for some reason), just try to explain them to the best of your ability. If you run any sort of prog against a relatively new team, you may technically win, but your speaks will not be high. Especially if it's friv theory or highly technical.

Miscellaneous:

1. I'd like to say I'm Tech > Truth, but this hasn't really been put to the test yet.
2. If any evidence is called into question or is just contentious, I'll call for it after the round if necessary. It probably won't affect the ballot, unless it's particularly egregious. Please just explain why your evidence should be preferred.
3. I'm not going to be flowing cross, so if anything important is brought up, mention it in your speeches so I can flow it through. Don't be too aggressive or rude during cross, interrupting the other team multiple times will not be good for speaks, unless they're just stalling. On that note, please answer what your opponent is asking clearly, and don't waste time excessively or ignore a question you don't know how to answer.
4. Don't say anything offensive/derogatory. Any biased or harmful rhetoric will seriously affect your speaks, i.e. racist, homophobic, ableist language.
5. Please extend everything through; don't drop something in rebuttal from your constructive and then try to reintroduce it in summary. Try to clash and not just repeat the same arguments.
6. Just be nice in round lol. Don't be dismissive or aggressive or condescending. I understand that it can get competitive, but treat your opponents well. Don't shake your head or make faces at me while your opponent is speaking, it won't sway me to your side.
7. I will time you and expect you to time yourselves. However, I won't cut you off immediately, so feel free to finish your thoughts. I'll try to keep track of prep time if I can, but please note it on your flows if possible.
8. Don't worry about speaks in general, I'll probably skew them high.
9. Just relax and have fun. It's a sport or a game at the end of the day.

I have debated in Lincoln-Douglas Debate for 4 years in Science park high school. I recently graduated and I am now on the Rutgers Newark debate team. I've qualified to the TOC in both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate my senior Year.

I give high speaks if you are clear and really good in the big picture debate. I like a good story.

Hi all,

NOTE: for single use plastics topic, I have a good amount of topic knowledge

I'm a high school pf debater with experience on the TOC and Nats level. I will flow what happens in the round (anything I hear), but I will not flow cross. If anything comes up in cross that you want me to know, bring it up in the next speech.

Add me to email chains if you want, wfrank@collegiateschool.org

What I'm looking for in speeches:

1. Well-fleshed out constructives; make sure your arguments have a uniqueness, link, and impact; I do buy extinction scenarios but I will not automatically weigh on magnitude; you need to give me a reason to prefer magnitude over probability
2. First rebuttal: a line-by-line analysis; numbering the responses and labeling them (dl, turn, nu) will be very helpful for me, and it will show in your speaks
3. Second rebuttal: this is one of the hardest speeches in the round; extend any offense that you want to go for and frontline or I will not evaluate it. Respond to all turns! Weigh if you have time
4. Summaries: weighing will increase your chances of winning exponentially, tell me why should I care about your arguments more than theirs
5. FFs: Make it very clear to me why you should win

Other notes:

Truth vs. Tech: I’m a bit conflicted here. While do I believe debate is an illusory game, I also think that one of the main skills we gain from debate is good research practices and public speaking. So please don’t lie to your opponents, but I will treat (almost) anything that is said as true unless told otherwise. If I catch you lying you might win, but your speaks will not be as high as you want.

If I am told that two piece of evidence directly conflict, tell me why one is better. I will call for any evidence you ask me to after the round.

Spreading:I can handle some speed, but please nothing too fast; if you are going to spread, it better be understandable and you have to send a speech doc. Slow down for taglines and warrants

Theory: If you are running a friv theory shell to get an easy win against a less experienced team , you will get very low speaks (<27.5). Otherwise, do what you want; I will default to competing interps but can be convinced pretty easily to switch to reasonability

Ks: I'm probably not a very good judge to run a K with because I have little experience with them; I'll try to evaluate them as best as I can but no promises.

CPs: They have no place in pf

Please collapse -- otherwise the speeches get way too messy

Any -isms will get you <25 speaks or dropped from the round depending on severity; I understand that sometimes we misspeak, but we have to make sure everyone in the round is comfortable

If you make me laugh, +.5 speaks; If you send a speech docs +.5 speaks

Try to be nice in cross; I probably won't dock points if you get a little heated, but I know from personal experience that being rude/condescending in cross doesn't look (or frankly feel) good

I'll give an oral RFD in extenso and write brief comments in tab.

Have fun! I know all judges say this but I've found that regardless of the debate's outcome, you learn new things and make new friends.

If email chains needed: forrestfulgenzi [at] gmail [dot] com, please format the subject as: "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"

Background: Debated policy debate for four years at Damien High School and currently the head coach over at OES. Have been involved in the debate community for 10+ years teaching LD and Policy Debate.

General thoughts:

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.

Overall, I'm open to any arguments - feel free to run whatever you'd like!

Quals are overrated, post round if you want but I can't guarantee you will get the result you want

Email is dgibson7227@gmail.com

Add me to the email chain

If I'm not flowing its not because I've already submitted my ballot its because the way I compete and judge is rlly weird with regards to flowing, I find that most of the time rounds aren't as intricate as a flow would require, but I still have a pretty good memory so don't cap in the 2AR, I prob won't buy it. I do flow to an extent most of the time tho.

https://discord.gg/MGZ6wD4rz6 join this for independent resources. If you don't have access to debatedrills or something similar or your school gives you negative support you are also cool. also if ur a speech kid who wants to learn debate go for it.

Deleted my old paradigm because it was too much yapping

tldr I will vote on literally any argument (emphasis on argument) that is won, I dont care about pf or traditional circuit rules you can read counterplans on me I dont care about the NSDA, card speed analytics are fine, pref me 1 for anything but trad in which case pref me 2, my defaults are intentionally weird because judge adaptation is an underutilized skill
Defaults (a lot):
Presumption goes to the team with a worse competitive record (think chess elo)
Permissibility defaults to presumption unless you tell me otherwise
I don't default to any paradigm issues, shells without them die
Theory vs truth testing flips theory unless otherwise argued (literally any weighing)
Ks are a disad to phil and nothing more if they critique the plan, if they critique an element of the debate space they uplayer like normal
Fiat is good
Role of the ballot is to vote for the team with arguments left on the flow, if both teams meet its TT
Conditionality is good for any #
Severance is good for any #
Plan inclusive [x] is good
Condo planks are good
Combo shells are good
Insert argument style here is good

Speaks start at your tournament average, if speaks aren't disclosed or it is r1 I start at 28.5

My name is Opeyemi Faith Gideon (she/they). I am a student at the University of Ilorin. I have much speaking and judging experience and am an accomplished debater. I have a lot of experience presiding over many debate competitions such as British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF) and World scholastic championship (WSC).

As a judge, I value positive, fair, equitable, and appropriate interactions with others during discussions and cross-engagements. I value debaters who fulfill their roles, deal with debate burdens, disputes, and conflicts in an efficient manner, as well as deal with contentions in an equitable and effective manner. It is crucial that you understand that even if you disagree with the contexts and frames offered by the opposing team, I advise that you still discuss their argument while offering your counterfactual if needed. Your summary speeches should concentrate on emphasizing the arguments, justifications, and logical implications that help you win the dispute. The only points that should be included in your final emphasis are those that have already been discussed in the debate.

To make sure you're keeping track of the time spent on various parts of your speech, I ask all debaters to monitor time as I do as well. It would be lovely to hear you finish your speech naturally and on time.
I also advise debating participants to always have their cameras on. However, I am open to making exceptions, so if there is ever a time when you are unable to turn on your video camera, please let us know and we'll be sure to excuse you and make an exception.

My preferences are:

- State your contentions clearly

- Speak clearly and slowly, don't spread. You will know you are speaking too quickly if I drop my pen. I cannot follow you if you speak too quickly so pay attention to this preference.

- Be polite, if you are rude and disrespectful to your opponent or to me, you will lose the round.

-Track your own time and your opponent should track their time.

nathan.gong@utexas.edu / I prefer tabroom fileshare though

I qualified to the TOC three times for LD, debated twice, and cleared once (as Plano East and Plano Independent)

Read good quality evidence, be clear, compare arguments, and ballot paint!

Stop talking early when possible - I don't want to hear a 6 minute speech when a theory shell was conceded.

I can tell you speaker points after round if you want

Don't read evaluate after X

memorial '25

im a flex debater for memorial. id like to consider myself laid back so do whatever you want.

1 - k

2 - theory, phil

3 - larp, trix

hi! my name is mariska haddock, my pronouns are she/her, and i’m a junior varsity debater at cabot high school.

TLDR: -read if you're short on time!

be kind people! discrimination of any type is not tolerated and will result in an automatic loss.

include me in email chain - haddomaris25@cps.k12.ar.us or mariskahaddock@gmail.com

tech over truth

i choose the winner based on my flow- be clear about kicks, don’t drop anything

focus on impacts!

flex prep is okay! i prefer cross but if you want to use flex prep it won’t affect my decision

don’t steal prep - its unethical

off-time roadmaps are recommended (unless it’s worlds lol)

number your arguments it makes flowing easier

public forum:

i do PF, so i focus heavily on argumentation and how strong the arguments presented are and the weight of their impacts

i love framework debate

weigh impacts!!!

don’t forget to extend your arguments

try to keep your rebuttals in a line-by-line format

2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal

in summary speech, extend terminal defense and offense; extend anything you want to mention in final focus

don’t be overbearing in cross

final focus should provide clear weighing ground- lay out my ballot for me.

don't skew evidence

congress:

speak fluently and make eye contact with the judges

have credible evidence and clear impacts

do not attack other reps or senators, only attack their arguments. it’s okay to reference other delegates as long as it’s in a respectful manner

ask questions!

don’t be repetitive with arguments- reply speeches help the flow of the round

be familiar with robert’s rules of order- i don’t expect perfect knowledge but be familiar with it and try to only make correct/germane motions

IPDA:

make sure arguments are clear and concise

extend your arguments!

weigh impacts! make sure that it’s clear to the judge why your impacts are more important than your opponents

lincoln-douglas:

framework is important and should be clearly articulated

make sure arguments are clear and concise

extend your arguments!

weigh impacts!

any argument is fine- i can flow prog

speech:

try to be reasonably within time

don’t freak out if you stutter once or twice- it’s normal

i generally do bnb events but throw in the occasional oo

make blocking effective and not flashy

i love good cutting- the debate kid in me comes out when pieces are cut effectively and efficiently

drive your point home- similar to debate, make sure your message is clear and impactful

please be kind people :)

Hello friends!

I have been in both Speech & Debate and I understand the rules and regulations of pretty much every style, I will outline my standards on just a few below... to save you time I will just outline what I am judging for this tournament.

PUBLIC FORUM

• I love public forum, always have, always will
• Impact clash above all else, how will this impact our society? What about world relations?
• NO PLANS.
• Please don't pull Ks unless you have too, I will judge on them, but they are really a policy thing.... but if you need to use them I understand
• Values are important and shouldn't be dropped
• Evidence is important, a claim is invalid if not supported by evidence
• If points are dropped, opponent must point them out or I will continue to flow
• Going with the point above, Tell my why it was important that It was dropped, what are the impacts? If you just tell me to drop something or strike from the flow I won't, unless you tell me why.
• VOTERS IN FINAL FOCUS!!!!!
• Keep CX civil, but trying to get a concession and good clash is always entertaining and shows skill
• I typically don't give into underdog effect, unless you're super rude
• this is PF no tag teaming.
• Overall present evidence, have a good time, and keep it civil :)

OVERALL

• Treat your opponents with respect
• be kind and courteous to people and room
• I will not tolerate any sort of hate speech, discrimination, keep it civil
• Debate is not a time to be pushing your political agenda onto others, political topics are okay, but we ask know when it's too far
• no need for evidence sharing, a title of source, author, and year is all that's needed to verify

Overall, debate should be fun, being honest, a lot of time it cannot be fun. Please keep a calm supportive environment with civil clash. I bring in no biases and I hope to have a fun round.

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, please let me know!

Hi! I’m Gavin, I’m was and probably still am pretty average at debate. I debated for 4 years at La Salle HS in Public Forum.

Disclaimer!! I’m most comfortable judging PF. Any other events, (i.e. Policy, Parli, LD, Congress, SPAR), stay on the safe side and treat me lay. I’ll do my best to vote off the flow, but I need you to break it down for me.

Carded events- I flow tag names not card names. If you're extending, tell me the tag not the card name

1. Tech>truth. I won’t do much work for you on the flow, all arguments you want me voting on need to be completely extended, frontlined, and weighed. Even if you have an argument that goes completely unresponded to, if I don’t hear that it extended throughout your speeches, I won’t vote on it.
   
   

2. Framing- I default Util. Any other framing needs to be read and/or responded to
   
   

3. Speech/Cross/Prep time- I’ll only keep track of speech times. It is up to you to time cross/prep & keep track of it. I think the 15 second grace period is kinda ridiculous. If you’re over time, I’ll let you finish your last thought (one or two sentences) before I stop flowing. Again,
   
   

4. Please signpost, I get confused easily and a lack of signposting means there’s a decent chance that I will misflow your speech.
   
   

5. Evidence- I will buy an uncarded but warranted argument over a carded argument with no warrant. Add me on speech docs & ev exchanges: gavhuss@gmail.com. Granted, I won’t look at either unless I’m asked to in speech or if your speech is too fast and/or unclear for me, see below.
   
   

6. Weighing- Please weigh. Also meta weighing is great. Summaries should definitely have weighing and final focus it is a must have. I’ll look to weighing as my first place to write my ballot.
   
   

7. Presumption- i will vote on presumption either if

1. a presumption trigger is read
   OR

2. the aff fails its burden of disproving the status quo (i don’t like doing this, so if i do, your speaks will be tanked)
   
   

8. Speed- I’m okay with anything probably 350>wpm, if you think you’re fast, send a speech doc. If I really can’t follow, I will tell you either “slow” or “clear” once. If you can’t accommodate and I still can’t understand, I’ll just stop flowing.
   
   

9. Cross- I will be on my phone and not listening at all. If something important happens, tell me why in speech.
   
   

10. Frontlines & Extensions- You need to do both, I won’t let you extend through ink.

1. Theory & Ks- I have minimal understanding of theory & Ks, sorry if I screw it for you. That being said, proceed with caution reading them in front of me

2. Speaks- Any blatant disrespect, rudeness, hostility, inequity in round =instant 25.

Hello there!

My name is Idris Ibrahim, and my judging career which spans for over four years has seen me muster up a significant amount of experience in a wide range of debate formats/styles such as; the British Parliamentary Format, World Schools Format, World Scholars Format, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Asian Parliamentary, and Speech Events.

Judging Pattern:

I always approach any debate I'm about to judge as a globally informed citizen, whilst making sure I toss any conceivable personal biases I may have about a topic aside. This means that to convince me in a debate room you must make sure your arguments are credibly realistic and persuasive within the scope of the debate. A couple of things to bear in mind about my judging pattern -

• State your contentions/arguments clearly and back them up with enough analysis to prove your case.

• Make sure you're creating a fair means of engagement towards your opposition. This means that I do not expect you to just present your contentions in a vacuum and expect them to win - I also expect that you challenge the contentions of the opposition and create comparatives to show why your contentions are superior.

• Ensure you highlight your arguments in a well-organized structure - I do not expect that in the middle of contention A, you then transition to contention B abruptly. Take your time to fully explain your contentions while also being time-conscious.

• Role fulfilment is also important. So make sure you fulfil your roles perfectly.

• For Speech Events - I appreciate absolute creativity during your presentation. I expect that you use all that is within your means to execute whichever role you're taking on in whatever speech event I am judging you in. I take notes of your eye contact, body language, energy, and expressions while speaking.

Side Notes:

• I have a slight preference for medium-paced speeches. This does not however mean that if you're naturally a pacy speaker, you're automatically disadvantaged when I'm judging you. I would give your speech equal attention and assessment on a meritocratic basis regardless of how fast you speak, but if you can, just take deep breaths as you present your speech rather than zapping through.

• I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.

Whenever you come across me in a debate room, I can guarantee you quality judging and the most accurate feedback (either written or orally) , I also hope that in my little way, I contribute towards the growth of your speaking journey.

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 !

Hello, My name is Peace John-Kalio, I am a seasoned debater, experienced judge and a great coach.

I have gathered experience and exploits in different forms of Debating such as British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, World Schools Debating format, Public Forum debates, Lincoln Douglas, Speech formats, and Canadian National Debate format etc.

As a judge i pirotiize logic and contents within debates and how speakers are able to logically defend their side and also logically rebutt their opponeths side.

I also pioritze equity within tournaments therefore I deem it important for speakers and all participants in general to have read tournaments briefings and manuals as I also do so myself in other for each participants to know what is expected from them.

The above also makes knowing different procedures like role fulfillment easier and how to tackle different types of motions and the burdens these different types impose on speakers therefore making rounds more engaging. I deem it as valuable for speakers to be aware of this.

Going further I appreciate when speakers are able to apply special skills and techniques within rounds such as counterfactual and fiats etc.

I also appreciate when speakers are time conscious and employ techniques like Pioritizing more important arguments so when time is up they are not at a loss.

In conclusion I like when speakers in whip and summary speeches are able to emphasize and compare why they win with the arguments brought up by their previous partners and how those arguments beat the opponents by drawing comparisons and not necessarily trying to add extentions. Speakers are also advised and encouraged to keep cameras on during rounds in an online tournament unless in situations that they absolutely cannot afford to.

I have also participated in cultural diversity training as a judge, several judging workshops and of course several tournaments both as a speaker and a judge.

Bio: I am a graduate of and debated 4 yrs of NPDA for Point Loma Nazarene University and served as Assistant Director of Debate at Grand Canyon University. I currently serve as Head Coach at iLearn Academy and still judge around the NPDA circuit.

Updated LD Philosophy: I enjoy and can keep up with spreading. But this quick whisper-mumbling stuff is nonsense. If you think a. that's really spreading b. what you're saying is intelligible, you're kidding yourself. You can go fast but you gotta up the clarity. Forcing me to read all of your cards instead of listening to the speech to understand is asking me to do way too much work and I must infer any analysis being given. It also makes it significantly harder for me to understand the nuances of how the arguments interact and I would prefer not to miss something important.

TL;DR: I strongly believe that I don't have any strong beliefs when it comes to debate rounds, I ran all types of arguments and faced all types of arguments. I see every round as an individual game and don't try to leverage my preferences into my decisions. Go for what you will. I won't complain.

Speed: Speed is usually fine depending on your clarity. I have more comments about it in the LD section. Online, depending on how fast you are maybe 80% is better in case you want me to get everything.

Theory/Framework: These are fine. I include this to say, that I don't mind your squirrely or K aff, but I'm more than willing to listen to the other side and you should be prepared to respond to framework or theory.

K's: K's are great. K's have a place in debate. I enjoy K's because I believe I can learn from them. The only issue is I am not great at being strong on critical literature bases. I believe that people who resent that type of debate altogether are stuck in an ultimately noneducational way of thinking. That being said, I'm not afraid to vote on "this doesn't make any sense". Just because it's a game doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible.

I will say if I had to choose between the 2 I'd rather have a straight-up policy round.

CP: Just do it right if you're gonna do it? idk the goal is not to get permed right?

Condo: I don't see condo as an issue. I won't forbid myself from voting for condo bad if it's argued for well enough or the strategy really is being that abusive. Some people have ideologies, but I think that's more of a meme at this point.

I am not a big fan of RVI's at all. I will only look to vote for one if it was unresponded to or within a unique context. But my least favorite and seemingly most common is spending X amount of minutes on a frivolous T, then saying you deserve the win for wasting your own time. If it is truly frivolous then either they won't go for it or they'll lose on it if they do. I will not reward it and I find it surprising at the number of judges who don't think twice about it.

Speaker points: I'm not a fan of speaker points so I plan on being a bit of a point fairy

Hi! I'm Yeji (she/her). I have done Lincoln Douglas, Parliamentary, and Public Forum debate all throughout high school. I love clash but please be respectful towards your fellow debater. I am not good with circuit/non trad arguments so if you are going to run them PLEASE explain VERY thoroughly and slowly. I flow cross and I will give feedback on them. Do not run any homophobic, racist, or sexist arguments and do not mansplain or be a demeaning debater.

General things I am looking for:

speed/tone: I am fine with you speaking fast but be clear. I like debaters who are very articulate and know how to project their voice. If you REALLY have to spread just email me your case please. I'll also dock you points if you're being a meanie.

args: Please try not to drop any args that have huge impacts. Make sure YOUR args have substance and impacts. PLEASE give me impact calc and rlly show me why I should care and the implications of your arguments. If you signpost and be really organized I will give you higher speaks just bc it makes my life easier LOL. If you and your opponent have different frameworks, argue and give me reasons why your framework is cooler.

time: make sure to time yourselves just in case! I will be timing though, but I don't trust myself 100% sorry...

Just in general, debate is meant to be educational and about persuading/talking to the judge about which world is better. I will be voting on whoever can prove to me that in the end, their world is superior for whatever reasoning/logic that I buy, will get the W.

Just don't speak too fast.

Hi, my name is Austin Kelachukwu. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered eclectic experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I like when speakers understand the format of the particular tournament they’re debating, as it helps speakers choose their style of speech or debating. Speakers should choose to attack only arguments, and not the opponent. I do take equity serious, so I expect the same from speakers. When speakers understand the tournament’s format, it makes things like speaker roles, creating good and solid arguments easy, so they can act accordingly, and through that understand how the judge understands the room as well.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment and other techniques used in debate.

I take note of both key arguments, and the flow at which such argument is built, so speakers shouldn’t just have the idea, but should be able to build that idea also to create easy understanding of the argument. On understanding also, i prefer when speakers speak at a conventional rate, to aid easy understanding of what the speaker says.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Austin Kelachukwu.

email: austinkelachukwu@gmail.com

Hi! If you’re reading this, it’s probably because I’m judging you. Here’s some information on my background:

Email: georgina.kenchington@SASchools.org

Georgetown University: B.S. International Politics, Concentration in Security Studies (2014-2018)

Public Forum Debate Coach @ Success Academy Harlem North Central (8/23-Present)

I started competing in Model United Nations (MUN) at the Marymount School of New York until I graduated in 2014. I continued to compete extensively and judge (chair) committees through my time at Georgetown University until I graduated until 2018. I served as Conferences Coordinator for Georgetown’s collegiate travel team my senior year, and also served on conference secretariats throughout my time at university, helping to organize and coordinate high school and collegiate level conferences. This is my first year judging public forum debate tournaments, and I’m excited to get started!

I have strong background in and knowledge of current events and international affairs/policies from my previous Model UN experience and collegiate area of study. I will note that my previous experience of theory/philosophy is limited.

Here’s the criteria I will use to adjudicate your round:

1. Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.
2. A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect and arguments that go against basic human rights and dignity.
3. I will increase speaker points for clarity, confidence, articulation, and poise - show me that you know what you’re talking about and say it with conviction.
4. I’m looking for a clear definition of the central issue, and understanding the exact reasons you think I should vote for you.
5. Make sure you engage with the resolution at hand — connect cases back to the topic clearly, and don’t waste time debating definitions of the words in the resolution.
6. Organization matters to me, and I appreciate a strong framework for your arguments. I will add speaker points for clear roadmapping.
7. I’m looking for a strongly orated round from the winner, keeping your speed at a medium.
8. I’m looking for analytics and the more educational team.

Good luck and I hope you enjoy this debate!

General

I am a flexible judge who comes to each debate with an open mind. I am open to all sorts of arguments, provided that sufficient work is done to prove why that's true and important to the debate. Things I generally look out for include:

Realism:

I believe that the most compelling arguments are those that show probability that a particular outcome will happen. Debaters usually focus on analyzing impacts without proving that those impacts can and will happen. This often leads to unengaging arguments that may not be as relevant to the given motion as required.

Engagement:

Debate is a comparative sport. I credit teams that are able to sufficiently engage with what their counterparts said. Teams can engage however they want, provided that the engagement is sufficient to disprove/mitigate what has been said.

Weighing

Teams should compare the strengths of their arguments with their counterparts' to prove why their case is better. Weighing helps me as a judge to see the conclusions that each team is trying to make.

Mechanization

I expect teams to go beyond making assertions by providing reasons why the arguments they make are true. A well mechanized argument will show me why a claim is true, and why it is significant to the debate. This also applies to rebuttals, provided that the claim being rebutted was well mechanized.

Clarity

I value arguments that are presented in a way that can be understood by a reasonable average voter. That means that arguments should be presented in a simple way, the relevance of examples should be explained, and the speech(es) should be consistent throughout the debate.

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!

Hello! I competed in LD and PF through middle/high school, but I mostly did LD. I don't have too much experience with more progressive debate techniques (kritiks, theory shells, etc), so if you run these, please outline clearly :)

You are all smarter than me! I appreciate definitions and judge instruction. I promise to flow diligently and understand arguments to the best of my ability, but I can't guarantee I will get everything in your cases--which brings me to my next point...

I very much prefer when debaters slow down and demonstrate a compelling argument --- fast is ok, but try to avoid full-out spreading. Especially with the audio quality of the computer, it's usually not worth getting out the extra words.

I love PMT (Probability, Magnitude, Timeframe) -- tell me why the impact matters! Also, I will consider the framework debate, so please don't forget to draw your claims back to the debate's standards :-)

Overall, I'm super excited to hear your speeches! Let's have a fun round!

if you need to add me to the email chain, reach me here: seankimdebate@gmail.com

TLDR: flow judge, please collapse and weigh, quality > quantity, ok with some speed

NOVICE: Relax and try your best! I won't be super technical, so don't worry about strictly following and understanding everything in my paradigm. Focus on presenting your arguments clearly and try to respond to all of your opponent's attacks during your speech!

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

Background

Competed in PF for Adlai E. Stevenson (2020 - 2023). Judged mostly PF for around a year (everything from locals to natcirc finals). I've also judged trad LD, speech, and congress.

Style/Strategy Preference

I can judge speed assuming you send docs, but I’d rather not unless you’re very very confident in your clarity. You should SLOW DOWN in summary and final focus.

Summary + Final Focus: Follow an “our case, weighing, their case” structure. I’m not a fan of structuring the debate in terms of “voters issues.”

COLLAPSE ON MAX ONE CONTENTION AND/OR ONE TURN. The less offense I have to evaluate, the more confident I will be in my decision.

QUALITY > QUANTITY. I’m not a fan of spamming lots of one-line blips in rebuttal and calling it a day. I will not implicate/warrant out arguments for you.

I think unique arguments and impact turns are great! I usually give high speaks (29+) to teams that innovate and go outside the meta.

How to Win My Ballot

Step 1: Don’t be a bad person (_ist, _phobic, etc.)

Step 2: Win some offense (under the given framework)

Step 3: Outweigh OR win terminal defense against your opponent’s offense

How to Win Offense

Extend the link, internal link(s), and impact of the argument you’re going for. To extend the link/IL/impact, you need to briefly explain what the link/IL/impact is and successfully respond to all terminal defense against it. This applies to turns as well!

If nobody wins ANY offense, I presume for the 1st speaking team. If your strategy involves winning off presumption, I will only evaluate presumption warrants that were introduced BEFORE final focus.

The default framework is util. If you want to introduce a different one, do so BEFORE summary. Frameworks should have warrants and, ideally, reasons why your opponents don't link in.

How to Outweigh

Tell me why your impact (or the link to the impact) is more important than your opponent’s via comparative analysis.

If there’s multiple competing weighing mechanisms, you should metaweigh. I default prereq > mag > prob if there's none.

Probability weighing is NOT an excuse to read new defense. I evaluate probability in terms of strength of link (i.e. the less mitigated the link, the more probable it is).

If there are multiple pieces of offense but no weighing, I'll intervene for what I feel is the highest magnitude.

No new weighing in 2nd Final Focus.

How to Win Terminal Defense

Briefly explain the defense, explain why your opponents failed to respond to it, AND implicate why that defense is actually terminal.

Even if your defense isn't terminal, you should still extend it if you're going for probability weighing!

Progressive Debate

I evaluate progressive debate in largely the same way I evaluate traditional debate: I look for who’s winning what offense and then who outweighs in the end. However, I am still MUCH more confident in evaluating traditional substance debate.

Theory MUST be in shell format and introduced immediately after the violation for me to evaluate it. Defaults are spirit > text, reasonability > CIs, DTA > DTD, education > fairness.

I think everything besides disclosure and paraphrasing theory is frivolous. If there's a safety issue, you don't need to run theory; I will stop the round immediately and contact tab.

I will NOT give RVIs.

I will NOT evaluate tricks.

I have very elementary experience with kritiks. I will try my best to evaluate one if you read it, but slow down and explain it to me like it’s my first time hearing the literature.

If you're looking for free, high-quality debate content, subscribe to Proteus Debate Academy

Hello! Currently I am a community college student in something of an academic limbo who will soon, God (Catholic or otherwise, I’m open to letters of recommendation) willing, be transferring to UC Berkeley.

I’ve debated for quite some time for the Mount San Jacinto Community College team but now I am something of a debate mercenary debating for College of the Canyons for whom I am the only member of the team.

This will be my first time filling out a judging paradigm form so please forgive me if it is somewhat unorganized.

Experience

So, in regards to my personal debate experience I was a High School Parli debate and thus qualify as a debate veteran. I have competed in Parli and am well acquainted with both the types of arguments as well as the sort of meta "culture" I suppose surrounding this. What this means is that I will typically be familiar with most debate terminology and will not be suprised get a case of the vapors if you propose a K or run an abuse argument. However, that being said I do certainly have grievances with some form of debate, somewhat due to personal trauma being a debater with only a club to compete with and encounter suited barbarians who would constantly run K's and definitional arguments in a round. I will also mention that although I have started to judge it more, I am not someone who has competed in Policy debate nor Public Forum, and as such I would perhaps advise you to try to use terminology that isn't only in that format, or at the very least take a moment to explain it as assuming the judge knows your secret debate society language can occasionally make it difficult to judge you in round.

Judging Style

So, I will firstly start out by saying that I am very much not a conventional judge in regards to some of my beliefs regarding judging during the round. I will take something resembling a flow, however I see rhetoric and narrative to be important aspects of a debate round that exists alongside the actual arguments themselves. I typically do not do a hard calculus of impacts and individual dropped arguments if they do not seem significant to me. I will also mention that I am willing to do slightly more labor on the judge's side than perhaps others. If you propose an argument but perhaps don't give an exact impact or connect to an the other team’s argument but I can see a connection, I will still consider it in that context but perhaps with not as much enthusiasm than if you explain to me why you argument about social media turning the Zoomer generation into zombie like drones of the state also relates to the opponents contension about twitter cancel culture being the next religious revival.

In regards to the question of whether the judge's perspective is brought into the round, I will admit that I very much believe that the judge is an actor within the round and that their knowledge does influence the round as well. What this means is that if you give an argument that is just blatantly false or not well supported, even within your speech, I will not treat it as though its logical rational truth within the round. I will still consider it and perhaps expect the other team to address it, but I will still have some standard myself as a judge. This doesn't mean I will attempt to be intentionally biased, however, just know that if I am judging you I am not going to just readily give you the win on any dropped argument or piece of evidence just because it wasn't fully addressed by the other team.

I do appreciate organization and reading out the general themes of your argument. You don't have to lay it out in your first speech and I will generally arrange the argument myself in my notes, but it is something that certainly makes it much easier to judge you, and I know because I myself have horrifically difficult to follow debate organization at times, like, modern art living room arrangement style.

Spread

So....this one is a bit difficult. I am quite used to following and partaking in speedier, more beefy rounds so in that regard I am not a lay judge. However, I am aware that in certain formats, particularly Public Forum and policy it is occasionally expected that the judge should be able to follow even if the debater is reading at a ridiculous speed attempting to cram in an entire list of arguments which, while I appreciate the enthusiasm, can make the round very difficult to judge in a manner that actually considers the arguments presented. In regards to speed, while I will allow you to speak quickly, please make sure you are actually emphasizing certain points and pronouncing your words and actually taking time to separate out your contensions. Also, in regards to accusations of spread, I am very much willing to take arguments in regards to this specific form of abuse, and I think that thinking you can win a round purely based on dropped arguments that are not even fully addressed by your team, or due to drowning the opponent in them is one of the more obnoxious tendencies of debate. I am fine with devious tactics and questionable frameworks if you can protect them, however this is something where I tend to find it a bit intentionally disruptive.

Kritques

So, Kritqiues….I guess I will start out by saying that I do quite appreciate these. They are like little warlock wizard spells that you can cast to hex your enemies or make them have to contend with being accused of “promoting an American individualist mindset” due to saying they think the Avengers movies provide great role models. I also think that Kritiques also sort of tie debate into the actual academic concerns that you may encounter at the college level, so I am very much in favor of them as a concept. You should still explain how it relates to the round, and present properly for debate by explaining why either supporting the resolution or the way in which the other team debating requires a consideration of the kritique. It can be difficult to achieve a win based on a Kritique alone, however if you feel it's powerful enough and want to make it the focus of your speech then I very much support that.

Also, I have been accused of being slightly Commie before...

(Don't worry, I probably won't summon the CIA)

Hi there!! My name is Juanmiguel im currently a Senior. Its my first year doing debate but in this time i have made it to JV so don't underestimate me. :)

I want this debate space to be fun but in order for this to happen you need to make sure that both teams are fair to each other. I don't like it when a team tries to stall out time to avoid tough questions. Main rule is to treat others how you would treat yourself. I also love impact calc so go crazy.

I debated parli in HS for DVHS and was mostly a caseish debater but i enjoy a well-run and explained flow debate

I would prefer if you didn't spread

If you want to run k or t, explain thoroughly what it is and what it means

I weigh on the weighing mechanism unless told otherwise

I will only protect the flow in JV/Novice, I expect open to be able to catch new args in 3rd and POO

I also really like terminalized impx

I am a former LD debater and a current parli debater at Berkeley (whose paradigm is still a WIP, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have)

But in general-

Tech >> Truth. I don’t mind theory or K’s, but make sure you articulate your K clearly if it’s obscure and niche. Please please please interact with your opponent’s arguments and show me good clash. Whatever happens, I will vote based on the flow, but your best bet is to make the decision easy for me (so collapse & weigh).

I am a flay judge with a little over 10 years experience judging and coaching. I didn't do debate in high school or college, but I have really enjoyed it on the judging side, and I have learned a great deal. Having said that:

1. I prefer arguments to technicalities. Debates about debate are not great.

2. If you are participating in an evidence-based event, do give evidence, and be clear and specific when you cite it.

3. Clash with the opposing arguments; more often than not I end up deciding which arguments I PREFER, rather than which ones I believe.

4. Signpost as you go. It helps me keep my flow organized.

5. Keep your impacts at the forefront.

6. Give me voters and weigh.

7. Ask questions during CX, and engage with your opponents, don't just give more speeches.

Good luck, and have fun.

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.

debated PF for 3 years

Email chain: manralishani@gmail.com

Send me ur cases for elim rounds w/ cards

GENERAL/PF

tech>truth

• I'll give oral RFD
• Warrant out everything or I won't buy it unless its obvious
• PLEASE WEIGH-metaweigh, compartively weigh
• Speed is fine but spread at ur own risk if I don't understand I won't vote for you
• Defense is not sticky- extend ur responses through the entire round or I won't evaluate them (unless theyre turns-offense)
• SIGNPOST
• That being said, extend ur cases
• Collapsing is the best strategy, I dont want to see you go for 3 arguments and have to evaluate all of them

• Feel free to postrd me
• I'm not the best at evaluating prog arguments and I don't really like them

LD

• I don't know much about LD, that being said treat me like a lay/flay judge.
• I'll try to follow the flow but no guarantees.
• I don't really like prog debate- run at ur own risk.

Speaks

-From 28.5+ unless u do something crazy bad

- Don't be racist/abelist/sexist etc. or L24's

Good luck!

Background

I've never competed in speech and debate before.

I've judged Lincoln Douglas and Parliamentary debate.

General Expectations of Me

1. I am a parent judge, so although I will be flowing, this doesn't mean that I'm going to understand every technical argument.

2. Don't assume that I have any prior knowledge of the topic, so make sure to be clear and descriptive in your definitions and arguments.

3. Don't post-round me - It is unethical and it won't persuade me to vote for your side.

4. Don't expect me to disclose rounds unless the tournament explicitly tells me to do so.

5. Clarity > Speed: I would rather you run 2 well-explained arguments than 5 rushed ones. I additionally also flow on paper, so if you rush through your evidence, then I won't be able to keep up. I flow more slowly than my digital counterparts, so there may be occasions that I miss something if you talk too fast. Do not under ANY circumstances spread and I will yell "clear" if you do. If you ignore this warning, I will give you the loss.

General Debate Information

1. I am truth > tech by slim margins. If your argument in unethical, false, or offensive, I won't give you the win based on that deciding factor. However, if you win by another argument, then there are chances that I'll vote for you.

2. Make sure to weigh impacts in your rebuttal speeches, but for sure in your summary speeches (or last speech in LD). Tell me WHY your argument matters and how your case's impacts are bigger than your opponent's.

3. Please signpost! I am a flow judge and I need to know what contention you're attacking and where this is on the flow. If I don't know where you're making this argument, I likely won't write it down as I am confused.

4. I am not a fan of progressive debate. Theories and kritiks are usually not well warranted and I won't understand what you're talking about. I don't mind counterplans, but make sure to explain them thoroughly.

Starting out 2024 as a notable unbiased judge

Email: blessingnkojo@gmail.com

You can catch me sparing at ALDD (speechforces) when am not Coaching at RSUDS

Crucial points about my philosophy on debate:

- Equity:

I believe that the fairest debates are those where there is no discrimination or use of derogatory language towards opponents or their arguments. Every argument should be respected and considered.

Things to avoid:

1. Do not classify any argument as nonsensical or stupid.

2. Do not make generalizations based on identity, race, or gender, as this can be stereotypical and provoke retaliation.

Things to do:

1. Be specific when analyzing people or places to avoid generalizations.

2. Approach every argument with a critical lens, refer to it, engage with it, rebut it, and respectfully counter propose. Now that this is clear,

please read before speaking if I am judging you…

Typically, I start evaluating during the second speech in any debate round. Therefore, I am more impressed by students who demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful note-taking), and intelligent cross-examinations, rather than those who rely on speaking quickly, using confusing language, jargon, or recycling arguments.

I have become more open to philosophy-style arguments in the past year. However, I have not extensively studied any specific literature bases. Philosophy arguments that are solely used to trick opponents will not win my vote. However, I am open to well-developed philosophy strategies. Since I am an ordinary intelligent voter, you need to ensure that your explanations are clear and robust in explaining how to evaluate your arguments.

Counter Proposals: Especially in policy debates, but not limited to them, counter proposals that aim to change the focus of the prompt (resolve) will be disregarded as they do not meet the necessary criteria. Use a counter proposal only if it is absolutely necessary or if it aligns with the spirit of the debate. My evaluation of a good counter proposal is just as important as my evaluation of the original prompt.

Goodluck..............

Do not spread, please.

Sign-posting is highly appreciated. Ex: "Now I will be talking about my contention 1, which is ..."

This gives me enough time to fully write down all your points to be fairly evaluated.

Hello! My name is Collin Monahan and I am an on again off again judge for speech and debate tournaments. I've been with people who are closely involved with speech and debate and I've been lucky enough to help judge many events and tournaments for the past two years. I love hearing how people make their arguments and present them in the best way possible, so be assured that I will listen closely.

Speech:

For any speech event, stick to your thesis! I understand speech events are varied and require different things, but I believe it's a matter

Debate:

I prefer students look at any debate event and think of it as communicating ideas rather than just reading research. I want to understand where you are coming from, how strong your overall argument is, and the best way you think it is to present that argument. If I cannot understand a speaker's argument because they are talking too fast or if speakers are talking over each other, I cannot judge.

email chains are good in the absence of paper copies - jimi.morales@successacademies.org

if you only read one part of my paradigm, this should be it -i have tinnitus and in spite of this condition will not use the speech doc to flow because you can still be intelligible without me needing to actively read over evidence . good (sp)/(eed)/(reading) with vocal variation and pacing exists and is easy to follow - (poor/unpracticed) spreading will tank your speaks and likely result in the L!!! please strike me if you cannot meet this condition-the conversations are becoming more and more uncomfortable after neither debater reads the paradigm and then both expect me to given an intelligent RFD to resolve an unintelligible debate. quality over quantity typically wins my ballots. id rather you articulate multiple solid links for one argument than run 7 off case positions with vague/weak links.

i often use the speech doc as a reference point if evidence in the debate is disputed or referenced in a rebuttal speeches as something i should look at post round as a key warrant for the decision.

framework is often useful. so is the keeping up the with "the news"

that being said, my job is to be a neutral arbiter for a single debate of which the only usual rules are the speech times. just when i think i've seen it all in the activity, debate has a way of pleasantly surprising me.

i am listening to cross-x and you can/should reference it.

i like well researched positions that don't contradict themselves unless explained in advance or immediately after why those contradictions are ok. if you run ironic performance positions without explaining or looking up from your laptop, i will take your words literally. this will likely make you upset at my decision.

if your coach or another competitor wrote anything you are reading and you haven't re-written it, unless you really understand the argument, you probably don't want me judging.

ask me specific questions about subjects not listed above and i will happily answer them to the best of my ability.

About me:

A proudly African woman from Kenya who is obsessed with debate and the culture of sharing knowledge, perspectives, and experiences! Has organized and hosted multiple debate tournaments across continents, and is a debate and judge coach to African debaters in the British Parliamentary debate circuit. Studies computer science as a university degree, and spends her free time debating, judging, listening to music, dancing, eating great food and of course, travelling!

Judging rubric:

In any given debate, there are a few baseline criteria I use to evaluate arguments and speeches:

1. Clarity: tell me what the debate is about and what it should be evaluated on, e.g. helping vulnerable groups, maximizing freedom of choice, etc. These should ALWAYS be followed by mechanization.

2. Mechanization: do not just state claims and rebut them with counter-claims. Mechanization means giving me strong reasons why your claim or counter-claim is true, and why it is not only important in the debate, but the MOST IMPORTANT in the debate. That means you must do good quality weighing along with your mechanization.

3. Weighing: take the best case scenario of the other side, and do a comparative analysis with the average case or worst case scenario on your side. If you can show me that even if your side's best case does not work, your average or worst case is still better than the other side's best case, and give me strong reasons as to why, you've scored a solid win.

4. Engagement: being genuine in addressing the other team's case is key to winning a debate. Do not assume points for the other side, or try to water down their points without giving me proper rebuttal. Listen keenly to what each speaker says, and do your best not to run away from the core of their case, even if it seems hard to engage with. Try your best!

5. Structure: present your speeches in a clear and simple way. Complexity does not win debates, simplicity does. Clear structure and simple but detailed analysis makes it easy for teams to understand your arguments and for me as a judge to do so as well. I value signposting (giving me a brief outline of what you will talk about in your speech), flow (signaling the end of one argument and the beginning of another), and clear comparatives throughout the speech.

6. Team Dynamic: how you and your partner present your case is important. I need to see strong support structures and extensions to strengthen arguments, and see well thought out speeches that do not sound contradictory or confused on one end. Cohesion and synchronicity is key!

7. Respect: let's not be derogatory or discriminatory towards anyone in the debate. Let us not think differently of them because they have different accents or are not from where you are from. Any slander, arguments based on stereotypes, lack of respect for gender identities and general offensive language will result in repercussions, and a report to the tournament organizers. Let's celebrate diversity and culture, and learn from everyone's different perspectives!

Good luck everyone!

Hi there! I've been performing since I was very young, and I am a 2007 graduate of the American Musical & Dramatic Academy in New York City. I direct both adult and youth productions at my local theatre and have been an active judge in both this year's, as well as last year's, tournament seasons.

I have completed the NFHS Cultural Competency course, and I identify as diversity enhancing!

POI/PR/PO: Show me a strong commitment to your material, with bold but organic choices. Use your binder --this is a reading event-- but don't hide behind it!

HI/DI: Make sure your piece tells a decisive story and that your character transitions are smooth enough that I know who's talking at at all times! Also important: sure, bold choices are good, but I still want to see the nuances behind your characters and what you're saying. Rather than just doing stock characters, approach them from a place of truth. That almost always yields funnier and/or more powerful results!

EXTEMP: Research, research, research! I'm looking for a well-organized speech that answers the question clearly and provides a lot of cited sources.

OO/INFO: I love how much I learn when judging both of these categories. Remember your top priority is to teach us something, and that good lessons are organized, compelling, and easy to understand.

CONGRESS: Ask great questions of your fellow debaters and be researched enough to be able to provide convincing answers to the questions that are asked of you! Looking for strong points and organization in your speeches!

Remember that no one can offer exactly what YOU offer, and embrace that! Most of all, have fun!

amanda072086@gmail.com
Speak clearly. Any speed is fine as long as you slow down and read your tag lines and main points very clearly. Spreading is fine. Give clear indication of when you have reached the burden you set out.

LD: I am a true values debate judge in LD. Tabula rasa judge. Flexible to any kinds of cases and arguments as long as they are respectful. If your case is not topical or abusive and your opponent argues and proves that in their speeches then I am willing to vote based on topicality, education and abuse.

PF and CX: Be respectful and cordial to your opponent. I’m open to most anything in Policy rounds. Always stay on the debate topic, don’t wander off onto an irrelevant subject because it’s more enjoyable to argue about than the topic is. Always allow your opponent the opportunity to complete their sentence before continuing to cross.
I’m a Tabula rasa Judge especially in Policy debate. If you don’t tell me how you want me to weigh the round and set a minimum burden for each side to have to meet within the round to win then I will default to judging based on the block and will turn into a games playing judge and will make voting decisions based on what my flow shows and dropped arguments or arguments that were lost or conceded will very much factor into my vote. Impacts, Warrants and links need to be made very clear, and always show me the magnitude.

Active debater, public speaker and judge(2019–present)

He/Him pronouns

Always add me to your email chain olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

I love PF so much and judge it more often.

FLOWING

I view myself as a flow judge, but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial. If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel. A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for analyzing and weighing the round during the Final Focus.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs is very crucial to me, while debate may be seen as a game, it takes place in the real world with real consequences. It matters that we properly represent what's happening in the world around us. Please, follow all pertinent tournament rules and guidelines - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

SPEECH AND PACE

• I can’t follow everything in PF if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and myself comprehends you. Your efficiency and eloquence in subsequent speeches will shape your scores.
• Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
• Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
• I'm not particularly fond of theory becoming a standard in PF, especially disclosure theory. If there's a significant violation and theory is the only recourse, I might accept it, but expect reduced scores. Ideally, address the issue in a manner more aligned with traditional PF standards.

BREAKDOWN OF SPEAKER POINTS

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

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

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

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

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

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

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

DECLAMATION

I’ve just judged a round of this and I’m so much in love with it. Be authentic with your topic, appeal to your audience’s emotions, be eloquent, use a good lighting so I can properly judge your gestures and body movements, have a good cutting, introduction and conclusion and you’ll be good to go. I’ll most likely give you a 100 if you prove yourself worthy of it.

I as well judge other formats like Lincoln Douglas, speeches, World schools and parliamentary debates. Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.

As a flay judge, my approach to evaluating debates is informed by both theoretical knowledge across various formats, including LD, PF, CX, and speech events, as well as practical experiences in these domains. I believe in creating an environment that fosters respectful and engaging discourse.

Speaker Conduct:
I value a calm and composed speaking style. It is crucial for speakers to articulate their arguments clearly and audibly, ensuring that their message is effectively communicated. While passion is appreciated, maintaining a respectful and controlled demeanor contributes to a more constructive debate.

Argumentation:
I encourage debaters to present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. The quality of evidence, its relevance to the topic, and the strategic deployment of arguments are key factors in my evaluation. Logical coherence and the ability to address counterarguments thoughtfully are highly valued.

Clarity and Structure:
A well-organized speech is instrumental in conveying ideas effectively. I appreciate debaters who provide clear signposts, adhere to logical structures, and create a coherent narrative throughout their speeches. A clear roadmap enhances both the understanding and flow of the debate.

Cross-Examination:
In formats that involve cross-examination, I appreciate debaters who engage in thoughtful questioning. It is an opportunity to demonstrate a deep understanding of the issues at hand and to strategically challenge opponents' positions. Respectful cross-examination is more productive and contributes positively to overall speaker performance.

Time Management:
Effective time management is crucial. Debaters should be mindful of allotted time for speeches and adhere to established time limits. Well-paced speeches contribute to a smoother and more organized debate round.

Adaptability:
I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in responding to unexpected arguments and the ability to adjust one's approach contribute to a debater's overall effectiveness.

Respect and Sportsmanship:
Respect for opponents, judges, and the activity itself is fundamental. Demonstrating sportsmanship, regardless of the competitive intensity, is highly valued. Creating a positive and inclusive debating environment is essential for fostering a healthy and enriching experience for all participants.

I look forward to engaging in intellectually stimulating debates and witnessing the skills, strategies, and passion that debaters bring to the round. Remember that every debate is an opportunity for growth and learning.

Best regards,
Ogunniran Jesutofunmi Joshua

Email: Dghostdebate@gmail.com

- Speaking Style: Emphasizes clarity and flow in speeches. Encourages structured line-by-line, clear plan/counterplan texts, and highlighting important evidence.

- Argumentation: Values logical analytic arguments, even without cards. Prefers clear plan/counterplan texts.

- Disadvantages: Focuses on comparing risk between disadvantage and advantage chains. Advocates for traditional uniqueness and link claims over brink + link uniqueness. Supports agenda politics.

- Counterplans: Recommends avoiding consecutive permutation arguments. Open to process counterplans but believes conditionality benefits outweigh costs.

- Topicality vs. Policy Affirmatives: Inclusion of resolutional language doesn't guarantee topicality. Caselists are helpful for interpreting limits.

- Kritiks: Values strong alt debating. Framework arguments should address weight of impacts.

- Planless Affirmatives: Affirmatives should provide a counter-interpretation and discuss their model of debate.

- Speaker Points: Relative and reflective of technical skill and style.

Closing Thoughts:

"I value clarity, logical arguments, and clear plan/counterplan texts. In debates, risk comparison matters, and I support traditional uniqueness and link claims. I appreciate strong alt debating and believe in procedural fairness. Speaker points reflect technical skill and style.

Thank you, debaters and coaches, for your dedication."

Hi, my name is Oloruntoyin Muhammadbaqir Akorede. I am a debater, public speaker, adjudicator and a seasoned coach.

Within a large time frame, i have gathered experience in different styles and formats of debating, which includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), Australs, Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), World School Debate Championship(WSDC), Public Forum(PF), amongst others.

As a judge, I enjoy it when speakers are aware of the rules of the specific competition they are participating in, which typically dictates that they engage the opponent's arguments while making their own. While I do take equity seriously, I anticipate the same of speakers. Speaking roles and making strong arguments are made simple when speakers are aware of the tournament's structure. This enables them to act appropriately and, in turn, gain insight into how the judge adjudicate the debate.

I guess speakers need to be aware of the many motion types, the kinds of arguments that should be made in them, how to carry their burdens, and other debating strategies.

When a summary or whip speaker recognizes that their job is not to provide commentary, I enjoy it when they stick to their assigned tasks.

I suppose that speakers are to understand the types of arguments that should run in the different types of motion, their burden fulfillment, and other techniques used in debate.

I appreciate when speakers keep to their roles, i.e. when a summary or whip speaker knows one’s job is not to bring new arguments but to rebut, build a partner’s case, and explain why they won.

I value when speakers keep to time, as arguments made after the stipulated time wouldn’t be acknowledged.

Hello,

I am Opoola Opeyemi. I am a seasoned debater and an experienced judge.

I am quite versatile and experienced in different forms of debating such as British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debating format (WSDC) , Public Forum debates (PF), Parliamentary Debates, Spar debates and so on.

As a judge, I proritize logic and sufficient analysis; how speakers are able to logically defend their side without missing any logical link and showing why their arguments win the debate.

I also pioritze Equity within tournaments therefore I deem it important for speakers and all participants, as I prioritize a safe and friendly atmosphere for debate.

I will very much appreciate if you don't rush with your speeches, however I will be willing to note whatsoever you give as arguments during the round.

Thank you!

Cabot High School Senior Captain

TL;DR

I’m good with all arguments

Tech over truth

Make sure to not drop points

Don't give fake evidence, instant loss if you cannot provide the cards if asked.

Attack the case not the person, I will deduct a large amount of speaker points if you're attacking the person.

Have fun with the debate

I have started debating at Cabot since 8th grade. I am okay with all arguments. Use whatever you want as long as it doesn't discriminate against anyone. Make sure that you properly explain all arguments and don't just throw out buzzwords and jargon.

BQ

I generally prefer the standard of morality in BQ but if you can give me a reason not to, then that's great. You don't need to have a lot of statistics for BQ. I personally prefer well spoken arguments and slower speaking in BQ, but I will evaluate anything. Make sure you explain how your arguments and cards connect. I'm fine with all arguments as long as they are relevant.

PF

Make sure to take advantage of any definitions you can. Impact is very important policy wise so make sure to flesh it out throughout the entire debate. Fake evidence equals instant loss. If I cannot trust one piece of evidence I can't trust any of your evidence. Just argue well, If I am not given a weighing mechanism I will default to cost benefit analysis. Just debate and do it well, like I already said up above, I will evaluate any argument as long as it is explained well.

LD

I prefer that you link in your arguments and give me a reason to vote for you. Make sure to expand on your points and impact if you have one. These are important parts of the debate and give me a clear reason to vote. Make sure you expand on your framework and show me why I should consider your value/criterion over your opponents if the framework makes a difference. If the framework doesn't matter, then don't extend it.

Although your argument may hold truth I prefer the technical parts of the debate (i.e. you drop what they say about your point, and it is false if they are right). One thing I don’t like is trying to discredit sources just because they are from the past or not within the past 4 years; yes, it is important to have up to date sources, but at the same time it is not necessary if it is an analytical argument. If you do make an argument on the credibility of sources don't just say it's not credible, you also need to explain why I can't vote on it because of the lack of credibility. I know the connection is obvious, but unless you make it that connection, it won't be on the flow. If an opponent asks for a card provide the card or you lose credibility.

Congress

Just don't discriminate against anyone. Answer questions effectively. I don't do congress very much so I'll be frank and just say you're unlucky to have me.

IPDA

Same stuff for LD basically. Just make sure you explain your points well, I think IPDA is a great opportunity to show off the fundamentals of debate.

As a seasoned judge with few years of coaching and judging experience, I prioritize a conversational delivery and balanced use of jargon for clarity in communication. My meticulous note-taking ensures accurate recall of key arguments.

I equally value both argument and style, emphasizing the foundational importance of substantive arguments. In evaluating debates, I prioritize content, structure, and adherence to the topic, favoring arguments with real-world impacts and diverse perspectives.

Reflecting on my judging experience, I find that well-supported arguments tied to real-world impacts are consistently the most compelling in previous rounds.

In terms of in-round conduct, I expect debaters to maintain a respectful demeanor, actively fostering a constructive and competitive spirit aligned with the educational goals of debate.

Adhering to judging principles, I commit to impartiality, active listening, and fairness. Open-mindedness guides my approach, ensuring receptiveness to diverse perspectives without pre-judgment. Respect, adaptability, and encouragement of engagement are fundamental to my judging philosophy.

Upholding integrity, I steer clear of conflicts of interest and provide transparent criteria for decision-making. Constructive feedback is integral, offering positive reinforcement and specific, actionable advice for improvement.

Hello, my name is Owolabi Victor Oluwatobi. I am a debater, public speaker and seasoned coach.

Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, these includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Parliamentary debate and World scholastic championship (WSC).

As a judge, I prioritize when speakers attack only the arguments and not attack fellow speakers, I also take equity issues as important, so I expect speakers to follow it solely.

Also, I appreciate speakers that sends me their documents for LD, PF or other related styles or speakers that speaks at average pace or gives me a heads-up before speaking extremely fast.

I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style.

In debate, I value speakers who already knows the different types of motions and what is expected of them in terms of burden fulfilment and things to do.

Also effective use of fiats, counter prop and other important techniques.

I also appreciate when summary speeches prove why speakers win, by emphasizing on the arguments, justifications and logical implications, no new arguments should be brought up.

I also encourage speakers to keep track of time because arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.

For online tournaments, speakers are encouraged to turn on their cameras except in extreme situations which they should take excuse for.

As much as possible, I always try to be open minded, take all relevant notes, have clear decisions and helpful feedbacks.

Let’s have a great time!

Troy '24

parkandrew463 at gmail dot com

Tech>truth. I will vote only off what is on my flow. This means be clear, and address all relevant arguments. Hold up let me say that again. BE CLEAR!!! I'll be the first person to admit that sounding good gets you way more competitive success than it should.

Policy

Zero risk is a thing, but very hard to achieve

Counterplans that compete are likely legitimate, with the exception of a few egregious counterplans

Equally debated, CPs probably have to compete via both text and function

Risk assessment is magnitude x probability. Timeframe is usually a tiebreaker

Kritiks

Framework heavy strategies (on both sides) are the most likely to succeed

I usually struggle to understand why the 1AC being an "object of scholarship" excludes the plan. Ks need specific DAs to plan inclusion

Kritiks that are explained as a CP + DA will most likely lose to a litany of competition arguments

I care a lot less about having "specific links" to the aff. These only really matter in debates where the 1AR/2AR strategy is heavy on the permutation

I think fiat and death Ks are very strategic

Ks explained using SAT words will result in a hot L

Planless Affs

Affs should have a really good reason to not be T. Otherwise, I'm inclined to err on the TVA or SSD

Fairness is an impact. So is subject formation, antiblackness, etc... Let's do impact calculus

DAs/impact turns to planless affs are underrated (also goes for kritiks)

In my very humble opinion, most planless affs get away with highway robbery

Topicality

Topicality is only a question of limits. It's up to you to tell me how I decide what's a good limit on the topic

The semantics vs pragmatics distinction is silly. At a certain point, the difference in precision is so small that I couldn't care less, and the same goes for pragmatics

Honestly, these debates are incredibly boring

Theory

Theoretically, I have no idea how the neg beats 1AR theory

Drop the argument/status on condo is so unbelievably silly

Most "CP theory" is wholly unpersuasive in front of me. There is nothing functionally different between a consult CP and a uniqueness CP

I find reasonability incredibly convincing and it probably zeroes most "frivolous" theory

Phil/tricks

I never really dabbled in any of these arguments. I'm down, as long as I can actually flow wtf you're saying (which never seems to be the case)

I don't know how phil affs don't just fold to a topic K, but that's just me

I don't know what the difference between truth testing and comparative worlds is, but again, that's just me.

Have fun!

jaydenpark1122@gmail.com

For Saints Showdown II: I will vote on any argument and dislike lay rounds. If you get me boba or do 50 push ups auto 30 speaks

"Judging in debate is the worst it has ever been. The amount of screws that happen and people getting robbed of their hard work is unfathomable. No one gets it right except for Gordon Krauss. Read what you want, I do not care whether it's Hegemony Bad, the Death K, or forcing a government shutdown to pass the plan.

Nothing besides the arguments made in the debate will matter to render my decision. I have no experience with tricks and philosophy and will be extremely lost, but if you beat them on the flow, you beat them on the flow."

I’m a co-owner of a speech and debate academy and head speech coach with kids who’ve done well nationally. I’m a professional actor and a member of SAG-AFTRA. I am also a licensed attorney in CA with a background in civil litigation. I enjoy traditional LD, especially helping students learn about different philosophies, effective research and writing and developing great analytical and persuasive skills.

What I Value: I value organized, clear and coherent debate with clash. I value traditional debate and especially appreciate creative but applicable values and value criteria. A thoughtful framework and clear organization is very important, both in the framework and argument. I really enjoy hearing well-structured cases with thoughtful framework and value/Value Criterion setups. I have seen cases decided on framework and I think it is very educational for students to learn philosophy and understand more of the philosophical underpinnings of resolutions and even democratic society. Don't forget to show me how you achieved your value better than your opponent, or even how your value and VC achieve your opponent's value better. Don't forget to show your organization of claim-warrants-impact in your arguments. I don't think solvency is necessary in LD, but if you have a persuasive way to bring it in, I am okay with it.

Speed: A proper pace and rhythm of speech is important. I am fine with coherent, articulate fast talking that has a purpose, but I really do not liked spreading. I find it and double-breathing very off-putting and contrary to the fundamentals of public speaking and good communication and the notion that debate should be accessible to all. Normal people sit bewildered watching progressive, circuit-level debaters, unable to comprehend them. Furthermore, it appears that progressive debaters typically give their cases via flash drive to judges and opponents who then read them on their computers during the round and during decision-making. This then becomes an exercise in SPEED READING and battle of the written cases.

Theory: I don’t know much about theory and all the tricks that have trickled down from policy into progressive LD. However, I am open-minded and if done intelligently, such as a valid and applicable spreading K, I believe it can be an interesting way to stop abusive practices in a round.

Final words: I think all of you should be very proud of yourselves for getting up there and doing this activity. Please remember that being courteous, honest and having values you follow are going to take you much further in life than unethical practices such as misrepresenting your evidence cards or being rude to your opponent. Good luck!

Coppell '24

POLICY/LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

Please add this email to the email chain: this.is.sahilp@gmail.com.

I am a Worlds judge, so to make it easiest for me slow down and make your arguments clear, I have almost no experience in other events.

WORLD SCHOOLS:

This event is by far where most of my competitive experience is.

A few general things:

• Do not barrack with your POI's, it will result in lower speaker points.
• Do not ask POI's during the first and last minute of the constructive speeches and do not ask POI's during the reply speeches.
• Use weighing and warrants to substantiate your claims and prove to me why you should win the round. The less work I have to do, the better.
• World comparison is very important as it clearly paints to me a world I would rather live in. Don't make me fill in the blanks and intervene!
• Do not spread, make sure you are speaking at a conversational speed.

With all that being said, good luck in round!

General

• Technicality over Truth.
• Speak as fast as you want. However, if you’re going faster than I can process, I’ll text you to go slower once and then it’s on you.
• Defense you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately after it was originally read.
• I don't care if you sit or stand or wear formal clothes etc.
• Give trigger warnings.
• Absent any offense in the round, I'm presuming neg on policy topics and first on "on balance" topics.

Case

• Do whatever you want to do.
• I prefer framing arguments to be read in case, i.e extinction/structural violence authors.

Rebuttal

• Offensive overviews in second rebuttal should be discouraged and as such, my threshold for responses will be lower.
• I think you need to frontline in second rebuttal but do whatever you want to do, however,
• Anything not responded to in second rebuttal is regarded conceded.
• Turns that are conceded will have 100% probability.

Summary

• Caveat on turns. I believe that if you extend a link turn on their case, you must also make the delineation of what the impact of that turn is, otherwise, I don't really know what the point of the turn is.
• Case offense/ turns should be extended by author name.
• Do - “Extend our jones evidence which says that extensions like these are good because they're easier to follow"
• Don't - "extend our link"
• For an argument to be voteable I want uniqueness/ link/ impact to be extended.
• First summary
• Defense should be extended but I’ll give slightly more lenience to your side if extended in final especially since the second speaking team already had a chance to frontline it twice.
• Second summary
• This is your side’s last chance to weigh, so if the weighing is not here then I will not evaluate any more weighing from your side
• Defense must also be extended

Final focus

• Just mirror summary, extend uniqueness, link and impact.
• Don't make new implications on something that was never heard before.

Cross

• Cross is binding, just bring it up in a speech though

Evidence

• I know how bad evidence ethics are, however, I will only call for evidence if if the other team tells me to call for it
• If your opponents are just blatantly lying about a piece of evidence, call it out in speech and implicate what it means for their argument
• I’ve always been a firm believer that a good analytic with a good warrant beats a great empiric with no warrant. Use that to your advantage
• You’ll have a minute to pull the evidence your opponents called for before your speaks start getting docked

hi! im yesh

sophomore at san mateo class of 24! i qualled to the TOC in LD both years if its relevant

updated for middle school toc

yeshraofc@gmail.com for the chain although i prefer speech drop

read anything! i've gone for / debated against everything and think i won't be predisposed to any particular style of arguments

Policy Arguments: I'm good for these! impact calculus wins rounds, the 2nr should answer the aff and win either a substantial risk of cp solvency with at least some risk of a disad, or a large risk of a disad with small risk of the aff. Impact calculus should be the top of the 2nr, turns case arguments are underutilized and win rounds. Limited intrisicness is almost always arbitrary. Theoretical objections to most counterplans could better be read as perms/cp competition arguments but I'm okay listening to them as theory arguments too. I'll judge kick the counterplan if you tell me to and any 2ar reason I shouldn't might not be the best time investment but up to you

Theory: Also good for this! The 2ar/2nr on theory should spend the vast majority of your time doing internal link comparison and weigh between standards. I think weighing between voters like fairness and education is less persuasive, most standards have internals to both and are more nuanced. I'm good for 1ar shells but I do think they should have some development in the 1ar to be a complete argument. I default competing interps, drop the argument, and no rvi's. These are changed with arguments in the contrary but it's just to have a standardized way to think about rounds.

Phil: Probably the thing I've gone for least but one of the things I wish more people went for! I understand Kant, Hobbes, and Prag to an extent. I'd love to see you go for anything else but I'd suggest assuming that I don't understand it and go from there. I usually read util affs but I've also read/gone for kant and prag so I'm good for both sides of that debate in most instances!

Kritiks: I think I'm a lot better for this than my argumentative history may suggest but admittedly I don't know about most literature bases. I'd love to hear a good 2nr on any kritik or a k aff and won't be ideologically opposed to it in any way. I would like if the 1nc includes a framework block because LD makes the weigh case debate very very muddled if late breaking.

Non T Affs: I have gone for these a few times and think I'm okay for them. I'm better for impact turns to framework / reasons abdicating the resolution is valuable OVER defense to negative offense and less true I meet's. I've gone for 2NRs on both limits/fairness and skills but I think skills is more persuasive for me.

Speaks: I average a 28.5, and will go up/down from there. Speaks are based on strategic choices and persuasion. To get higher speaks, be nice in cx and make rounds easier to evaluate!

Email me if you have any other questions! 

I am a parent judge. I prefer clear, concise arguments over speed (please no spreading). Use signposting - it will help me remember and understand your argument. Do not use debate jargon and keep your own time. Be civil and show respect for your opponents. Good luck!

Debate (mostly applicable to Parli.)

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

What I like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I don't like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do:

-Include a value/criteria

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

-Communicate when you are using prep time

DO NOT:

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

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

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

EMAIL: kristinar@cogitodebate.com

Hello! I'm Bibi, and I recently graduate from the University of Pennsylvania in biology. I love running, art, and debate!

I'm currently a debate teacher/coach at Success Academy Middle School in Ozone Park!

My email: bibi.singh@saschools.org

I've debated three years of Varsity Public Forum in high school. I was a mentor on my team and judged debate for around six years on both the high school and collegiate level in Philly!

I prefer clear well-spoken speakers that can get their content across effectively. In terms of content, I want to see the impact of your position on a much broader scale. Specifically, make sure you answer this question, why should I care?

In terms of speeches, I prefer that people stand when they speak. During cross, I prefer to keep our environment respectful, with no rudeness and no overpowering others. I prefer no oral prompting.

I accept frameworks and off-time road-maps but make sure they're relevant and don't overuse them (don't roadmap every single one of your speeches to me, it should be organized) In terms of card-reading, please don't call for cards excessively in the round. Feel free to establish an email chain beforehand if that works well for you.

In terms of judging, I look for clear and cohesive arguments as well as impactful closing statements. I based on who created the most valid points versus who was most aggressive and "hard-hitting. (overall, be passionate but please do not start yelling at your opponents. Have fun. ) I'll give extensive feedback on your specific speeches if you ask for it.

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!

heyyy im zachary (he/him)

a bit of bio: ive competed pf and speech for three years. ive qualled to gold toc and states 2x in speech. mostly was second speaker (so i love good ffs). i keep up with the news and have prob done extensive research on the topic beforehand so my bs meter is pretty good.

i evaluate things like ur average flow judge. i try to be tech > truth but it’s hard to be when a case is just obviously false. it’s the role of the competitors to tell the judge which piece of evidence is misconstrued. i wont intervene if u do misconstrue evidence but i might drop speaks.

warrants are really important in debate. im usually to lazy to flow author names and dates but will prob write down the stats.

please weigh and metaweigh! i default to probability but will consider scope or magnitude weighing when given the right warrants.

para and disclose: run it if u want. but dont run it for an easy win, tell me specifically the role of the ballot and the norms u wish to see occur. but if ur just highlighting random words in a card to say ur not paraphrasing, dont do that.

In my debate space, it's crucial to value fair and thorough engagements, involving logical concessions and fair comparisons. Respect is paramount – steer clear of rudeness and discriminatory language. Avoid excessive speed in presenting arguments, speak clearly for effective communication. Remember to justify claims and be mindful of your debate burdens.

Ensure you incorporate a clear roadmap and strategically place signposts throughout your speeches. Effective organization is crucial, particularly for my ability to assess efficiently.

In my judging philosophy:

- Cross-Examination (CX): I don't flow CX. Use it for clarification and identifying clash. If something arises, bring it up in your or your team’s next speech.

- Progressive DebateWhile not an expert, I've picked up some progressive tech over time. On Ks, if well-structured and clear why it's prioritized over the case, I'm open. If not, I'll judge on the case. Avoid CPs in PF and minimize in LD. Theory is beyond my judging capacity; don't run it.

RFD in Public Forum: I vote based on well-defined, linked impacts. All must be extended across the flow. If your Summary drops an impact, I won't consider it in Final Focus. Framework and weighing can influence impact importance, but I don’t vote off Framework.

- RFD in Lincoln-Douglas**: Framework is crucial for impact weighting. I evaluate how each side fulfills the FW and its impacts, similar to PF but with more emphasis on competing FWs.

- Speed: I'm a paper flow judge. Speaking too quickly increases the chance of missing points. No spreading; it's disrespectful and lacks value in communication.

Engaging in acts that go against equity, such as homophobia, sexism, racism, ableism, etc., are NOT condoned and may lead to a deduction in speaker scores. Please don't hesitate to reach out via email if you have any concerns or issues related to such behavior.

Email : royalrhetoricsrr@gmail.com

Best of luck!

John

Hi!

My name is Sodiq Farhan (he/him). I am a graduate of the University of Ilorin, Nigeria and I have experience in speaking and adjudicating at national, regional, and international levels in British Parliamentary, World Schools, Public Forum, Policy, LD, Asian Parliamentary, NSDA speech and debates, amongst other formats. I also have solid experience as a trainer and coach. So I very much understand the need to create a very empowering learning experience for participants and provide them with useful feedback. I am confident that I will be a good and impactful addition to your team of judges and educators.

Email address: farhansodiq360@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

One of the things to note if you would meeting me as a judge in a room will be that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. Do not be rude, disrespectful or discriminatory.

Even in instances when you do not agree to contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary.

I also really appreciate that speakers ensure to always keep track of time and adhere to the timing as much as possible.

Lastly, I do understand that speakers often times have a lot of ideas to share during their speeches in a short stipulated time but please, don't speak excessively fast. Just as much as I would pay very close attention to speakers, I am most comfortable with audible and medium paced speeches.

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

Please ensure to confirm that your microphone works well and doesn't have any breaking noise. Be sure to be close enough to it as well, so that you can be as clear and audible as possible.

All the best!

General:

pronouns: he/him

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: matthewsaintgermain at gmail.

If you are going to be speed reading analysis, especially in rebuttals, send your speech doc. I'm 47 years old and have been in very loud bands and worked in nightclubs for decades. I hate to admit that I don't have the hearing I once did and it has become prohibitive for me to hear the blender of paragraphs coming out of your mouth at auctioneer speeds that generally isn't tagged nor signposted and is just huge chunks of long, run-on sentences that I in real time have to paraphrase in my head into something discernible as I'm flowing it and hearing you already make new, run-on sentences to subsequently paraphrase. Help me help you. Sending your doc does not hurt you. If you don't send this you get what you get and no amount of post rounding is going to demystify my decision appropriately for you.

REPLY ALL.

Affirmatives should have the email chain up and ready to roll immediately upon getting settled in the round. Please do not wait for everyone to arrive to start this. No "oops, I forgot" 1 minute before the round starts please! Unpack your stuff and get on this immediately, preferably sending a blank test email ASAP to make sure we're not having connection issues right before you stand up for 1AC. Also please only use an email chain and not the file drop and please do not send me a live doc as I flow on my computer (a Mac, so please send pdfs) and working from a file that people are updating live causes issues on my end so create a copy of your doc and send so I can view it without issue. I have multiple screens up optimized to flow the round and fill out the ballot via web browser split screen with a spreadsheet program and having to search for your evidence or view it outside of a browser before your speech messes my whole deal up. Despite all this being clear in my paradigm for some time now people keep ignoring it so it seems as if I have to give you justification for why this is important and it is because doing it any other way causes all my screens to get totally out of order as well can cause system resources to go wild. Having to minimize a screen to open up a word editor to then maximize and place back in my dual screen takes time and then rearranges the order of all my windows meaning in the time I'm trying to accomplish this while muted, debaters often go "I'll start if i don't hear from anyone in 3... 2..." and I'm now scrambling to try and find the window that Mac has decided to randomly change position in my window swipe order meaning where I think it is it isn't, and by the time I find it to unmute myself y'all are already speaking despite me not being ready and struggling to tell you this because of your choices to send me stuff that does not comport with my set up. Please keep things easy for me by running an email chain where you send pdfs, not doing this tells me you haven't read the very top level of my paradigm.

Former Edina High School (MN) policy debater (1991-1995) and captain (1994-1995). Former Wayzata High School (MN) policy coach (2019-2022).

I have judged just about every year since then for various high schools in the Twin Cities metro, including Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and South St. Paul, from 1995 to present, with only two years off, just about 27 years. Please note, however, that this has not meant coaching on those topics up until 2019 through the end of the 2021-2022 season.

I'm versed in plenty of debate theory but I'm still catching up on nuance of newer nomenclature so get wild on the meta jargon at your own peril. Especially on critical theory arguments, you would do well to SLOW WAY DOWN and explain yourself thoroughly as while these things may be crystal clear to you, I'm not reading theory or complex philosophy In my free time so stuff like telling me to look beyond the face and totalizing otherness isn't going to immediately jog my "oh, yeah, that stuff" part of my dusty closet of a brain as you're going a million miles an hour with almost zero audible indication of where tags or analysis begin or end with relation to the evidence you're blazing through. I am 45 years old, I played in bands and have worked in rock clubs for years which has impacted my hearing, and especially over the Internet, speed reading complex philosophy through whatever variable quality mic you have often results in a kind of unintelligible din that is not helping you. You may in fact say it is actively hurting you. SLOW DOWN. This is an issue of accessibility and ability. If you're doing this and not sending the analysis that you're straight up reading from a file but expect me to somehow jot down multi-syllabic, college-level philosophical words while you triple-auctioneer speed over the internet, I mean, you're gonna get what you're gonna get, and no amount of post-rounding questions about things that were so clear to you is going to demystify what I humanly was able to get down. I need to stress this. If you're going philosophical and going even moderately fast, you're probably going to lose. Acting shocked after the round isn't going to change what you could have easily adapted to before the round started.

Unless you're theorizing it on the fly, send me everything you read, not just evidence. There is no material audible difference for the listener between you reading evidence and you reading analysis as fast as humanly possible. Both are just a kind of variable din regardless of the content.

My primary focus has been and continues to be Policy debate on the high school level, and that's where probably about 85% of my judging work has come. But I have ample experience judging circuit-level LD and PF through breaks alongside college debate and am more than comfortable adjudicating these different forms of debate.

This paradigm is a constant work in progress.

Across Policy/PF/LD:

Dear debaters: I want to up front set your mind at ease by saying that debate, as I see it, is a club that by the start of your very first round, you are all a valued member of. The fact that you gathered up all your anxiety and worries and excitement and talent and got up and gave your very first speech, it's totally awesome. To me, you are part of a distinct kind of people, different from all the non-debate people, and as such, I want you to both embrace failure as a growth methodology as well as let go of any worries or judgments or preconceived notions about whether or not you belong here. You absolutely do. Please, not only feel okay making mistakes here but look for opportunities to make them! Take chances, especially in your first two to three years of debate. This debate stuff can honestly be mentally rigorous at times, but it's all about a kind of shedding of your prior self and any of the BS put on you in your lives outside of debate. Here you're on the team so any and all advice given to you is purely about building you up even if it feels like criticism. Only internalize what you need to fix, not that it means anything about you. I've learned over nearly 30 years of judging and coaching that while there are kids whom take to this immediately, that there are also kids who seem like they can't handle this at all and drop terrible rounds in their first year or even two, whom end up becoming TOC and Natty quals debaters that blow you away. I've seen it over and over. Debate (and especially policy debate) is a gauntlet that takes years to develop your skills, and so long as you stick with it, you'll succeed. The fact that you are here means that you're already one leg up on winning arguments in regular meatspace as is, but stick with it and it'll change your life over a myriad of domains.

If you think I'm not paying attention to you, you're wrong. I have probably one of the most detailed flows you're ever going to see, which you won't, but you get my drift. I just try very hard to look almost disinterested so you don't really know what I'm thinking and so it won't mess with you, though there are points where something does trigger a response and you should notice that, but anything else is just me trying to give you nothing visual to go off of. Just never confuse it with anger or indifference or whatever. Like, if you do something egregious, you'll know because I'll tell you. Otherwise, there's no subtext or hidden meaning behind anything I'm relaying to you as I'm extremely direct. I promise you I don't hate you.

Time yourselves, across all levels of debate, including novices. Y'all can handle this and take responsibility for each other by keeping tabs on both your and your opponents time.

Straight up don't go whole hog on disclosure. There was no disclosure when I debated. There wasn't even really "let me see your evidence" my novice year. You went in raw dog and dealt with it. That's not to say that I don't understand the whys here, it's just that I really don't find them compelling versus the debate we still could have with you ripping through open ev quick-like. If your opponent is being intentional here, didn't disclose or did something different than what their wiki said or what they told you, I think you have a path to argue presumption tilting your way but I still really need you to debate the actual debate rather than dumping a ton of time into an argument I would honestly feel dirty voting for. If you want to run disclosure, honestly do not spend more than 30 seconds in a constructive or rebuttal on it. Make your violation, set your standard, show how they violate, move on to actual substantive issues. You're just never going to win a "5 min on disclosure in 2NR" strat with me. Do other stuff.

If your Neg strat involves multiple off and post Aff-response you kick out of a ton of stuff that the Aff responded to and just go for something that was severely undercovered, yes, I'll still maybe vote for this because technically you are winning, but this won't engender good speaks, and the other team really has to mismanage it. I don't believe this is all that educational of a debate (hint: there's an in-round arg here) and I think smart Affirmative teams should challenge this strat within the confines and rules of the round (meaning I think there's an argument you can construct, esp w/in policy, to check against this strat in your 2AC/1AR). To be clear, I am not anti-speed whatsoever, but a straight dump strat and then feasting on the arg that they had at the bottom of the flow with few responses is just like meh. It's honestly poor form. You're telling me you cannot beat this team heads up on the nuts and bolts argumentation. Affs are responsible for handling this, no doubt, but we're walking a fine line here when it comes to previous exposure and experience, and if it's clear this is not a breaks team and your whole strategy is just making debate less educational for them by spreading them out of the round, I'm not going to dole you out rewards beyond the technical win.

Unless the other team insults your character, microaggression/community critiques are an almost auto-loss for me for the team that runs them. If one team is being a bunch of dongs, I may say something in round, but if I don't it's because it has not risen to the level wherein my intervention is necessary. Otherwise, this is something to solely bring up with your coaches and bring to tab; it's not in-round argumentation PERIOD and turning it into offense is well beyond problematic to me. My degree is in psychology and this greatly informs my position on this across a variety of domains, and one of the central reasons is argumentation like this used as offense almost entirely is not followed up with any kind of tournament debrief between tab and the two teams and their coaches. Because no one wants to nor cares about that in these rounds where the offense is beyond subjective. If these are such severe circumstances that you're claiming rises to the level of an ethics violation, there's a process here that involves a lot of parties and time and I've yet to see this happen at all in rounds where the violation is tenuous at best. As one of the judges in both the '22-'23 MN State Final Round in policy between Eagan and Edina and '20-'21 Nat Quals policy round between Rosemount and Edina, I rejected both of these arguments with prejudice. Character assassinating a kid in round will *NEVER* fly for me and if this kid is such a well known problem, then coaches, tab, and the state high school league must be involved before they even sniff the morning bus to the tournament, let alone in the round itself. This has nothing to do with the Role of the Ballot and is extrinsic to why we're here to debate. Again, I will not have rounds I judge turn into character assassinations of individual debaters just because you don't like their personality. If they drop something offensive, like actual name calling, I'll even bring it to tab, but a little friendly sparring does not make the activity unsafe and not liking how someone speaks or their intonation sets a precedent that makes it even harder for neurodiverse kids (and adults) to participate. Make no mistake, this is not a "kids these days are too soft" boomer doomer arg. It's expressly about protecting everyone and not having DEBATE rounds devolve into some inquisition about a teenager's however unsavory-to-you approach. Racist, sexist, ableist, etc. comments are squarely different from this, though I believe teams who make an honest mistake and apologize should not be rejected and we should continue to move on, with the understanding that I'll likely mention something to your coaches to make sure the mistake is noted beyond the confines of the round.

*

*

Policy:

I view the intent of debate to be about education while simultaneously playing an intellectual game. I think that the word education itself is up for debate, but I would tend to view it as both mastery of epistemology and praxis. I am open to a discussion of that truth but I enter the world of debate with a certain set of beliefs about larger issues that should the round conform to that precondition, I am likely to vote there.

I would outwardly suggest that I am a tabula rasa judge who will vote for anything (that isn't reveling in things that make all debaters unsafe and are conscientious of specific situations that tend to be more unique for particular populations), but if you pinned me down on what I tend to think of when I think "policy debate," I would likely default to being a policymaker who attempts to equally weigh critical debate, meaning if the analysis/evidence is good, I can be persuaded to buy "cede the political," but it's not my default position.

Within the realm of policy, I believe a lot is up for grabs. The rules themselves are up for debate, and I think this can be a wonderful debate if you really want to go there. And just because I say I'm a policymaker doesn't mean that I'm against critical arguments; quite the contrary. I will vote on anything so long as the reasoning for it is sound. My preference is to hear about a subject that the affirmative claims to solve and why I should or should not vote for it. If that means that the policy entrenches some problematic assumption, that's 100% game; if it means something beyond the USFG, that's also fine.

Brass tacks, I'm not going to deny it: you give me a solid policy style round, I'm gonna love it. But I'm right there with you if you want to toss all that aside. As a debater, I chose to run arguments (borders K in 94/95) for an entire season that over half of my judging pool rejected on face as a valid form of argumentation with some making a drammatic display of holding their pen in the air while I was speaking and placing it on the table and then folding their arms to let me know just how horrific my choice of argumentation was. So for critical teams know that outside of Donus Roberts in the back of the room, I was a K debater who intentionall ran Ks in front of judges that thought I was ruining the activity and exacted punishments against me throughout my entire senior year basically destroying my experience. These were grown ass adults. While I might hedge towards policy as policy, I was a K debater myself so I am open to anything. I ran what I wanted to run, and I think the debaters of today in policy should run what they want to run, and our job as judges is to fairly adjust to how the activity adapts while connecting the activity to the constructs that best define it. That said, the further you diverge from the resolution on the aff, the more neg presumption is not just fair, but warranted.

I believe debate is also much more about analysis of argumentation than just reading a bunch of evidence. It's awesome you are able to quickly and clearly read long pieces of evidence, but absent your analysis of this evidence and how it impacts the round/clashes with the other team's argumentation, all you've done is, essentially, read a piece of evidence aloud. I need you to place that evidence within the context of the round and the arguments that have been made within it. I don't need you to do that with ALL the evidence, just the pieces that become the most critical as you and your opponents construct the round. Your evidence tells the story of your arguments, and how far they'll go with me.

If you hit truth, I'm there with you, but I can't make the arguments for you (I lean more truth than tech but I just can't make the arguments for you). When rounds devolve into no one telling me how to adjudicate the critical issues, you invite me to intervene with all my preconceived notions as well as my take on what your evidence says. To keep me out of the decision, I need you to tell me why your argument beats their argument based on what happened in the round (evidence, analysis, clash). I need you to weigh for me what you think the decision calculus should come down to, with reasons that have justification within the sketch of the round.

If you're a critical team reading this, know I've voted for K affs, poetry affs, narratives, and the like before. I'd even venture to guess my voting record on topics venturing far from the resolution is probably near 50/50. But I will buy TVA, switch-side and the like if they're reasonably constructed. The further you are from the resolution, the more I need you to justify why the ballot matters at all.

I believe line-by-line argumentation is one of the most important parts of quality debate. Getting up and reading a block against another team's block is not debate. Without any form of engagement on the analysis level, the round is reduced to constructives that act like a play. I want you to weave the evidence you have in your block into the line-by-line argumentation. This means even the 1NC. Yes, you are shelling a number of arguments, but you do have the ability as a thinking brain to interact with parts of the 1AC you think are mistagged, overstated, etc.

2AC and 2NC cause significant in-round problems when they get up and just group everything or give an "overview" of the specific arguments and then attempt line-by-line after I've flowed your 15 arguments on the top of the flow. Don't do this. Weave case extensions within the structure of replying to the 1NC's arguments.

The strongest Negative critical argument to me is "One Off" in the 1NC and then just horizontally eating that team alive the whole round on this one argument. I don't care how good the Aff is, "ONE OFF" uttered as the roadmap in 1NC sends chills down anyone's spine. Honestly, I HATE "6 off" and then feasting on the one arg the Aff fumbles. As I grow older, I'm less and less and less inclined to dole out the win on this strat. I also probably am not the best judge to run condo good against if the way you operationalize stuff is a pump and dump strat.

The following specific speech comments of this paradigm are more focused for novice and junior varsity debaters. At the varsity level, all four debaters should feel free to engage in cross ex, though, if you are clearly covering for a partner who seemingly cannot answer questions in varsity, that's going to impact their speaks and you highlighting it by constantly answering first for them is kinda crappy, kid.

Specific Speech Thoughts:

Cross Examination:

I do not like tag team cross ex for the team that is being questioned. Editing this years on, and I think the way this is phrased is misleading. A digression: some of the best cross-exes I've ever seen involved all four debaters. That said, the time was still dominated by those who were tasked with the primary responsibilities. And I think saying "I do not like tag team cross ex" makes it seem like I would be against the thing I just described as being great. This is only meant regarding scenarios in which it is clear one person is taking over for another for whatever reason. Taking over for your partner without allowing them the opportunity to respond first makes it look like they don't know what they're talking about and that you do not trust them to respond. Further, doing this prevents your partner from being able to expertly respond to questioning, a skill that is necessary for your entire team to succeed. I have little to no qualms about tag team questions, meaning if it's not your c/x and you have a question to ask, you can ask it directly rather than whispering it to your partner to ask. Again, however, I would stress you should still not take over your partner's c/x. Also, I'm generally aware when it's a situation where there is a pull up and the team has to make due. Obviously speaks will be attenuated, but also do think this is some kind of "I'm angry at you," deal. I can generally recognize in these scenarios and don't worry if you're trying to help your pull up.

Further, there is no "preparatory" time between a speech and cross ex. C/x time starts as soon as speech time ends.

Global (all speeches):

• I was an extremely fast, clear, and loud debater. I have no issue with real speed. I have an issue with jumblemouth speed or quiet speed. I especially have an issue with speed on a speech with little to no signposting. Even if you are blindingly fast, you should ALWAYS slow down over tags, citations, and plan (aff or neg). Annunciate explicitly the names of authors. Seriously... "Grzsuksclickh 7" is how these names come out sometimes. Help me help you.

• Need to be signposted in some way. This means, on a base level, that you say the word "NEXT" or give some indication that the three page, heavily-underlined card you just read had an ending and you've begun your next tag. Simply running from the end of a piece of evidence into more words that start your next tag line is poor form. It makes my job harder and hurts your overall persuasion. Numbering your arguments, both in the 1AC and throughout the round, goes a long way with me.

• Optimize your card tags to something a human can write/type out in 3-5 seconds. Your paragraph long tag to a piece of evidence hurts your ability for me to listen to your evidence. No one can type out: "The alternative is to put primary consideration into how biopower functions as an instrument of violence through status quo education norms. Anything short of fundamentally questioning the institution of schooling only reifies violence. The alternative solves because this analysis opens space for discovery and scholarship on schooling that better mitigates the harms of status quo biopolitical control" within about 5 seconds, while you are reading some dense philosophical stuff that we ostensibly are supposed to listen to while trying to mentally figure out how to shorthand the absurdly long tag you just read. And yes, that's a real tag and no, it's not even close to the longest one I've heard, it's just the one I have on hand.

• The ultimate goal is to not be the speech that completely muddles/confuses the structure of the round.

1AC

• It's supposed to be a persuasive speech. It's the one speech that is fully planned out before the round. You should not be stuttering, mumbling, etc. throughout it. You've had it in your hands for an ample amount of time to practice it out. Read it forwards and backwards (seriously... read your 1AC completely backwards as practice, and not just once but until you get smooth with it). It's your baby. You should sound convincing and without much error. If you are constantly stumbling over your words, you need to cut out evidence and slow down. Tags need to be optimized for brevity and you should SLOW DOWN when reading over the TAG and CITATION. And you should be able to answer any question thrown at you in c/x. 2A should rarely, if ever, be answering for you.

1NC

• Operates much like a 1AC, in that you have your shells already fully prepared, and only really need to adjust slightly depending on if the 1AC has changed anything material. If you are just shelling off case, then you are basically giving a 1AC, and you should be clear, concise, and persuasive. As with 1ACs, if you are stumbling over yourself, you need to cut out evidence/arguments. If you are arguing case side, you need to place the arguments appropriately, not just globally across case. Is this an Inherency argument? Solvency? Harms mitigation? Pick out the actual signposted argument on case and apply it there. As with 1A, your 2 should not be answering questions for you in c/x.

2AC

• If the 1NC did not argue case, I do not need you to extend each and every card on case. "Extend case," is pretty much all I need. Further, this is a great opportunity to use any of the 1AC evidence against the off-case arguments made. Did you drop a 50 States Bad pre-empt in the 1AC? Cross-apply it ON THE COUNTERPLAN. I don't need you extending it on case side which literally has zero ink from the 1NC on it. KEEP THE FLOW CLEAN.

• You should be following 1NC structure, and line-by-lining all their arguments. Just getting up and reading a block on an argument is likely going to end up badly for you, because this is shallow-level, novice-style debate, that tends to miss critical argumentation. I need you to *INTERACT* with the 1NC argumentation, and block reading is generally not that.

2NC

• First and foremost, you need to make sure you are creating a crystal clear separation between you and the 1NR in the negative block. Optimally, this means you take WHOLE arguments, not, "I'm gonna take the alt on the K and my partner will take the rest of the K." Ugh. No. Don't do this. Ever. It's awful and it ruins the structure and organization of the round. If there were three major arguments made in 1NC, let's say T, K, and COUNTERWARRANTS, you should be picking two of those three and leaving the third one completely untouched for the 1NR to handle.

• Use original 1NC structure to guide your responses to 2AC argumentation. Like the above, you should not be reading a block to 2AC answers. You need to specifically address each one, and using the original 1NC structure helps keep order to the negative construction of argumentation.

1NR

• Following from the above, you should not be recovering anything the 2NC did, unless something was missed that needs coverage. You should be focused on a separate argument from the 2NC. As above, don't just get up and read a block. Clash! Line-by-line! Make the 1AR's job harder.

1AR

• The hardest speech in the game. This is a coverage speech, not a persuasive speech. By all means, if you can be persuasive while covering, great, but your first job is full coverage. You do not need to give long explanations of points. Yes, you do need to respond to 2NC & 1NR responses to 2AC argumentation, but much of the analysis should have already been made. Here's where you want to go back and extend original 1AC and 2AC argumentation, and you only need to say "Extend original 1AC Turbinson 15, which says that despite policies existing on the books in the SQ, they continue to fail, everything the Negs argued on this point is subsumed by Turbinson, because these are all pre-plan policies." The part you don't need to do here is get into the *why* those plans fail. That's your partner's job to tell the big story. Again, if you are good enough to pull this off in 1AR, that's amazing and incredible, but no one is expecting that out of this speech. All judges are looking for from the 1AR is a connection from original constructive argumentation to the 2AR rebuttal. Rounds are generally NEVER won in 1AR, but they are often lost here. Your job, as it were, is essentially to not lose the round. Great 1ARs, however, begin to combine some of the global, story-telling aspects of 2AR on line-by-line analysis. But one thing none of them do is sacrifice coverage for that. Coverage is your a priori obligation and once you master that, then start telling your 1AR stories.

• Put things like Topicality and the Counterplan on the top of the flow.

2NR & 2AR

• Tell me why you win. Weigh the issues and impacts. Tell me what they are wrong about or analysis/argumentation they dropped. Frame the round.

Specific Argumentation

Topicality

• I tend to believe that any case that is reasonably topical is topical. You have to work hard to prove non-topicality to me, but that does not mean I will not vote for it. 2AC should always have a block which says they meet both the Neg definition and interpretation, as well presents their own definition and interpretation.

Kritik

• And as a bit of history, when I was a debater, the Kritik was an extremely divisive argument, with more than half of the judges my senior year (1994/95) demonstrably putting their pen down when we'd shell it and would refuse to flow or listen to it. We decided that we were not going to adjust for these judges and ran the K as a pretty much full time Negative argument and we were the first team in the State of Minnesota debate to do this. This made sense at the time as the topic was Immigration and a solid 75% of the cases we hit were increased border partrol, or ID cards, or reducing slots, etc. So, I'm quite familiar with the argumentation and I'm sympathetic to it. But I also feel it is overused in a sense when much more direct argumentation can defeat Affs and I would venture to guess many of the authors used in K construction would not advocate its use against Affs which seek redress for disadvantaged groups. I want you to seriously consider the appropriateness of the link scenario before you run a K.

• Negs need to do a lot of work to win these with me. It can't just be the rehashing of tag lines over and over and over. You need to have read the original articles that construct your argumentation so you can explain to me not only what the articles are saying, but are versed on the rather large, college-level words you are throwing around. Further, I find kritiks to be an advocacy outside of the round. I find it morally problematic to get up in the 1NC and argue "here are all these things that impact us outside of the round because fiat is illusory" and then kick out of this in the 2NR.

• I also want you to seriously consider the merit of running these arguments against cases which seek to redress disadvantaged groups. While I get the zeal of shoving it down some puke capitalist's throat, I question whether running said argumentation against a case which seeks, for example, to just provide relevant sex education for disabled or GLBTQ folx as appropriate. You're telling me after all these years of ignoring educational policy which benefits straight, cis, white guys that *now's the time* to fight capitalism or biopower or whatever when the focus on the case is to help those who are extremely disadvantaged in the SQ. This is an argument that proffers out-of-round impacts and I certainly understand the ground that allows this kind of argumentation to be applied, but a K is a different kind of argument, and I think it runs up against some serious issues when it attempts to lay the blame for something like capitalism at the feet of people who are getting screwed over in the SQ.

• I'm going to copy my friend Rachel Baumann's bit on the identity K stuff: "I will also admit to being intrigued with the culture-based positions which question the space we each hold in the world of debate. I have voted both for and against these arguments, but I struggle with which context would be the appropriate context in which to discuss this matter. The more I hear them, the less impressed I am with identity arguments, mostly because, again, I struggle with the context. Also, there is the issue of ground. Saying "vote against them because they are not... X" (which is an actual statement I heard in an actual round by an actual debater this year) seems just as constraining as the position being debated, and does not provide the opposing team any real debatable ground."

Case

• I will vote on IT ALL. Their barrier is existential? Well, that's an old school argument and I will totally vote on an Aff not meeting their prima facie burden, and I will not find it cute or kitsch or whatever. It is a legitimate argument and I am more than happy to vote there, but you have to justify the framework for me.

• Negatives must keep in mind that unless you have some crystal clear, 100% solvency take out, you are generally just mitigating their comparative advantage. Make sure that you aren't overstating what you are doing on case and that you weigh whatever you are doing off case against this.

Theory

• Also into it all and will vote on it. I think Vagueness and Justification and Minor Repairs all are quite relevant today with how shoddily affirmatives are writing their plans. Use any kind of argumentation that is out there, nothing is too archaic or whatever to run. Yes, this means counterwarrants!

*

*

Lincoln Douglas:


Much of the above for Policy crosses over into LD. I often sit in LD rounds where the criterion and value are mentioned at the front end of the debate and then never again. It would seem to me that these help bolster a framework debate and you're asking me to lock into one of these in order to influence how I vote, so then never really mentioning them again, nor using them to shape the direction of the debate always confuses the heck outta lil ol' me. Weigh the issues, write the ballot for me. Not locking argumentation down forces me to go through my flows and insert myself into the debate. Will vote on critical argumentation on either side (check my responses on 'distance from the resolution' up in the policy part, applies here as well) and you can never go too fast for me so don't worry.

*

*

Public Forum:

The requisite "I'm a policy coach, you can do whatever with me in PF" applies. Just tell me how to vote.

Adapted from a fellow coworker:

Likes

- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.

- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.

- Framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.

- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.

Dislikes

-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not just who said it.

-SPEED. I'm a policy coach. There is no "too fast" for me in PF. Seriously. There's no way possible and anti-speed args in PF won't move me in the slightest. Beat them heads up.

-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.

-Don't monopolize CX time. Answer quickly the question asked with no editorializing.

-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.

-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. That said, I really don't need any of the PF niceties and meta communication. Just ask away. Seriously. The meta performance of cordiality seems like a waste of time in a format with the least time to speak.

-K cases. I'll vote for em. K arg's same. If you hit a K arg, don't deer-in-headlights it. Think about it rationally. Defend your rhetoric and/or assumptions. Question the K's assumptions. Demand an alternative. Does the team running the K bite the K themselves? What's the role of the ballot under the K? There's plenty of ways to poke a sharp stick at a K. Simply sticking your head in the sand and arguing "we shouldn't be debating this" is not and will never be a compelling argument for me and you basically sign the ballot for me if the other team extends it and goes for the K with only your refusal to engage it as your counter argumentation.

General

-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.

-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than start your brutal post round grilling off with one-arm tied behind your back. ;)

Weighing

I do bring a policy comparative advantage approach to PF. In the end I believe there are two compelling stories that are butting heads and which one both 1) makes the most sense, and 2) is backed up by argumentation and evidence in round. I am pretty middle of the road on truth vs tech, requiring a lot less when the arg aligns with the truth, but if you are cold dropping stuff there's no amount of reality I can intervene to make up for that. You are each attempting to construct a scenario to weigh against the other and I'm deciding which one makes more sense based on the aforementioned factors. Point out to me how you've answered their main questions and how your evidence subsumes their argumentation. Point out your strongest path to victory and attempt to block their road. Don't just rely on thinking your scenario is better, you must also harm theirs.

No one really gets their full scenario, it's all a bunch of weighing risk and probability and if you can inject doubt into the other teams scenario, it goes a long way towards helping weigh the risk of your scenario against yours. Keep the flow clean and do this work for me and you'll get your ballot.

Hello!

I am Dominic Stanley-Marcus. I am a debater, a judge, a debate coach, and a classroom teacher. I have a bachelor degree in Educational Psychology from Rivers State University, Nigeria.

As a judge, I make it a mandatory objective to ensure a safe space for everyone to debate. This comes with establishing the rules of the house with clarity and candor and reporting any sort of violation of the set rules and regulations to the respective equity team. This isn't included in my metrics for assessing the winners because I also understand that my position as a judge is to be a non-interventionist average intelligent voter. I have been trained to be unbiased and objective as a judge, yet, being disciplined enough to call out wrongs at any time seen within a debate round.

The criteria for winning my ballot as a judge include but are not limited to the following: the persuasiveness of argument, style and delivery, clarity of purpose and logical engagement with the contending themes in the debate and confidence in both speech elements and burden of proof. On a basic level, I want debaters just show to me why their argument (s) is true and why I should care about whatever the arguments seek to achieve. Being an ordinary intelligent voter, I believe this metric is such that is fair for all, an advanced debater or a novice debater.

In terms of my personality traits and how they come into this paradigm. As a certified educational psychologist, one crucial personality of mine that can be exploited in a debate session is my listening skills. I am a very good listener. This also means that I pay close attention to speaker's speeches and not just judge accents, speech impediments or whatever could be their speech disabilities. This is an important quality for me as a judge because it makes me create room for everyone in a debate space such that speakers aren't marked down on my ballot because of problems beyond their capacity to control. By being a good listener, I ensure that fairness is upheld and metrics for winning a debate round ensure that individual differences are factored in.

Another quality I can boast of is being a mentor. I believe that part of my job as a judge is 'pointing people right'. By this, I ensure that my oral adjudication and feedbacks are as educating as necessary and possible. I thoroughly show the teams why they win or lose, yet, commend them on areas that they did great and where they also have to improve on. In the same vein, I show them why they should care since the debate is about growth and intellectual development. This makes debaters learn both in their victory and their defeats.

Lastly, I am open to challenges as a judge because that also presents an opportunity for me to grow and evolve. This is why flexibility remains my watchword to enable me to learn new things as quickly as possible and still deliver equally as expected.

Thank you.

Steven Szwejkowski - steven.szwejkowski@SASchools.org

High school - Renaissance Charter School

BA, Philosophy | Queens College

Although I have not formally competed in a debate league, I did recreationally partake in stimulating discourses in the Philosophy Club at Queens College while I was a student. We had many engaging debates, in which we explored highly theoretical and practical topics, ranging from consciousness to politics. Furthermore, my focus when I was an undergraduate and as of now is twofold: socioeconomic concerns and rational frameworks. To fully understand and extend the material in these topics requires an elevated level of researching, writing, and defending your conclusions, all of which are integral in debate.

As a side not, feel free to be as theoretical as each resolution/topic allows.

The following are two criterions by which I use to assess each debater and round:

Speeches: Must display clear articulation, confidence, poise, and appropriate speed. (Do not spread!)

Cases: 1) Must have clear and relevant contentions. 2) I favor quality rebuttals and the team that does a better job at attacking the opposition's arguments to which they may respond weakly. 3) I will take into account the team who asks better (leading) questions during the cross-examination rounds. 4) Lastly, the team that contains the most uncontested statements, i.e., dropped contentions, by their opposition usually wins under my judgement.

Hi!!

I am a parent judge so please do not just spew information and talk so fast that I cannot understand what you are saying. Also, do not say anything rude or disrespectful to the other speakers. Speech and debate should be a fun and educational event.

If there is one, please add me to the email chain: joytan8888@yahoo.com

To me, the best speeches are the ones that are (in order of importance) :

1. Well-Organized
2. Clear and Logical
3. Interesting and Persuasive

Remember that it is easiest for me to vote for you if you directly frame the ballot and explain why your side wins.

Good luck and have fun!

Hi. I'm Chloe. I'm a current LD debater (2022-Present) on the national circuit at Marlborough . I mainly run policy arguments. My thoughts will be similar to other Marlborough coaches and debaters.

add me to the email chain: chloetjo@gmail.com speech drop is great too

currently debating the jan/feb LD topic so I'll be familiar with topic lit. Not familiar with the mar/apr, ld, or pf topic so err on the side of over explanation

LD

prefs

1. policy
2. ks
3. t/theory
4. k-affs
5. phil, tricks

general

• tech > truth
• fine with speed but if I can't hear you I won't flow it or vote on it. If I have the doc I won't flow on it. I'll only use it to compare evidence and see where you cut evidence. slow down on analytics
• signpost and number your arguments please
• 0 risk is not a thing
• weighing is extremely important
• debate is supposed to be fun. don't do or say anything that makes the round feel unsafe

cps

• should probably be functionally competitive
• condo good just don't be abusive
• neg leaning on pics
• I'll only judge kick if you tell me to

k

• most familiar with cap, set col, and security
• unfamiliar with anything else so you'll need a lot of explanation
• your links and alts should be clear

t/theory

• disclosure should be 30 mins before the round starts. not unwilling to vote on disclosure theory but I def won't if they misspelled something etc.
• no rvis on t
• I default to competing interps
• fairness > education but you could convince me otherwise
• probably won't vote on anything like shoe theory, spotify, etc

k-affs

• your aff should probably be topical
• not opposed to voting on it
• neg leaning on k-aff v t-fw
• unfamiliar with most kvk debate except k-aff v capk

phil

• definitely have the least knowledge on this. not your judge to be running these
• I understand util and kant so if you're running phil positions over-explain them

tricks

• will never vote on these
• when it comes to responding you can literally just blow a rasberry and that's sufficient enough.

feel free to ask me any questions before/after round or email me. relax, have fun.

Speed and signposting are crucial. Avoid card dumps and ensure clean docs. Distinguish between card reading and analysis. Ethics matter - no cheating or card clipping. No screaming, and repeated interrupting in CX is a voter.

Tech over truth. Read cards, but don't misconstrue evidence. I prefer speed but slow down on analytics not in the doc. Theory is great if well-done; collapse to theory in 2NR/2AR. Encourage disclosure; false disclosure is bad.

Disads: Prefer aff-specific links, overview on DA/Case collapse.

New in the 2: Not a fan unless justified. Counterplans: One condo CP/K is fine; more lowers threshold. Judge kick default, but can be persuaded otherwise. Won't vote solely on solvency.

Kritiks (Neg): Assume I'm unfamiliar; explain K and alt clearly. Well-versed in cap, militarism, security, and fem. Specific K links are more compelling. FW is essential.

Kritiks (Aff): Evolved on K affs; framework arguments important. Kritikal advantages are cool; explain what my ballot does.

Case: Love turns; vote if properly impacted and weighed. Quality evidentiary analysis rewarded.

Fun Speaks: Clever, appropriate humor gets higher speaker points. Rewriting this shows understanding and commitment to debate norms.

Hello kiddos,

I have been in Debate for quite a few years. I am down to evaluate whatever arguments you want to run. I am not here to tell you what to run or how fast to run it. This is your show. I am cool with speed, ks, policy, procedurals, theory, or anything else you want to do. I wouldn't want you to think the round is about appealing to me, I think it is my job to evaluate the discussion you all have. Best of luck to you all.

Hello there!

My name is Halimat Ojone Usman (she/her). I was a regular debater and public speaker until I graduated. Now, I employ my vast speaking and judging experience to judge and coach speech and debate. I have gathered ample experience judging different speech and debate formats including British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu, Radio Broadcast, Ethics Olympiad among others.

Email address: ojonehalimat@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

When you encounter me in a room, please note that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. Iappreciate debaters who c heck out all the boxes of expectations including role fulfillment, efficient engagements of debate burdens, contentions and clashes and equitable and effective engagements to confrontations.

It is imperative that you note that even in instances when you do not agree with the contexts and frames provided by the other team, I advice that you still engage the team’s case alongside presenting your counterfactual where necessary. Following the ethical rules of the game would be great.

To restate (because it is important), please be sure to follow all equity rules and guidelines when engaging other debaters and judges.

Finally, I employ all debaters to keep time as I do so too to ensure that you’re keeping track of time spent on different aspects of your speech. It would be nice to hear you wrap up your speech, just in time and not in a rush.

Special Considerations for Virtual Debates:

Please keep your cameras on at all times. Be sure to communicate valid reasons if at any time, you can’t have your video cam on and we’ll be sure to pardon and make an exception in this case.

Other Remarks:

I prefer medium paced speeches. Do note that I listen very attentively and will very much note down everything you have said. Also, I am very aware of human diversity and I am well equipped to understand everyone and be equitable to everyone at all times.

I have a helpless artifice for researching the written and dedicate substantial hours a week to develop my speaking and judging prowess. I have coached and judged different types of debate including Public forums and have a satisfactory knowledge of Lincoln Douglas, Congress, Parliamentary Debate, Etc. therefore, looking forward to judging rounds of it. I am a debate coach at the Faculty of Education Debate Club, University of Ilorin, and also a member of the University’s Debate Club (UILDC).

Email Chain: usmanaduragbemi77@gmail.com

Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Parliamentary, Congress, Etc.

• Remember, in these debates, it's not all about speed. Focus on persuading me and showcasing the importance of your arguments. Keep it engaging and add some flair. When it comes to theory arguments, make sure they're valid and not just trendy.
• I'm not a calculator, so it's not just about winning lots of arguments. Persuade me with communication and style.

Here are some key points to remember:

1. Use signposts and roadmaps to guide your speech. Make sure to address your opponent's case and organize your arguments effectively.

2. Establish a framework early on and explain why it should be preferred. If there are multiple frameworks, choose one and provide a clear rationale.

3. When extending arguments, go beyond taglines. Explain the warrants and the importance of your impacts. Summary extensions are crucial for the Final Focus.

4. Paraphrasing evidence is okay, but make sure to explain its meaning and relevance to the round. Extend evidence in later speeches.

5. Focus on creating a strong narrative. Narrow down the key contention-level impact story and address your opponent's contentions effectively.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

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

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

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

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

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

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

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

jack.valentino@saschools.org for the chain.

I competed in LD, PF, and Extemp for Chaminade High School (NY) until I graduated in 2018. In college, I studied congressional politics and law while keeping up with current events. I'm now a coach at Success Academy Harlem East.

Medium speed is okay, but it needs to be understandable. Taglines need to be read slowly!

I give speaker points for confidence, articulation, and poise. As such, I'm looking for a well orated and well "weighed" round from the winner, not a line-by-line or technical win.That being said, I'm anti-intervention -- if they drop an argument completely in multiple speeches but you don't bring it up and tell my why that's important then I won't intervene and count it as offense for you. Similarly, if they tell me the sky is red and you say nothing and they extend it... the sky is red.

Engaging with the resolution at hand is CRUCIAL to me. Not receptive to Theory or K's -- engage with the resolution itself. Non-topical contentions need to be clearly articulated as to why I should vote on them. Clarifying/debating definitions of words in the resolution is part of debate, but rewriting the resolution is not.

PF specific: Open cross-examination needs to be agreed to by both teams for it to exist outside of grand cross.

Speak slowly/clearly, connect cases back to the topic ESPECIALLY CLEARLY, and feel free to be appropriately witty or humorous :) This is a public speaking activity, not a spreading activity.

As a fellow parent and experienced judge who has presided over more than 30 rounds, may I respectfully recommend that you speak slowly and clearly during your presentation? It would be greatly appreciated if you could begin by defining key terms, stating your standards, and presenting your contentions in a well-organized manner. When explaining your arguments and analysis, please use language that is accessible to a wider audience and keep the round as straightforward as possible.

My email is venkatesan.ramkumar@gmail.com

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.

Email: cwang@collegiateschool.org

Idc abt email chains but if you make one add me and if you're spreading send a speech doc.

I'm a current highschool pf debater with varsity experience. Some important things to know about my judging:

• Generally tech > truth. If a warranted arg is extended and goes unresponded I will flow it
• EXTEND ! ! ! If you fail to extend anything past 2nd rebuttal, I won't vote off of it at all even if it is brought up in later speeches
• No new args past 1st summary
• Rebuttals: as a second speaker, line-by-line and numbering responses helps me a lot
• Summaries: don't make the mistake and go for tiny argument you see on your flow. focus on the important ones and explain why you win them. Also it's good to introduce weighing here.
• Final: Good extensions + weighing

Other notes:

• If there is ev clash, either send it in the email chain or I will ask for it post-round
• Signposting and offtime roadmaps are important, esp in summary and rebuttal. The bare minimum is just telling me what side of the flow ur starting on.
• Theory: If unresponded and well warranted I can vote on friv theory but I highly discourage running it. Don't run theory against a novice/clearly less experienced team. I will not flow the shell and you will get very low speaks (<27.5). This goes for most prog args.
• Ks: not very experienced with them. I can try my best but I will need good warranting and extensions to vote off of them
• CPs: don't run them in PF.
• I won't flow cross or vote off of it, but it is a good indicator for me on how well you understand your own and your opponent's arguments. Feel free to be aggressive.
• Post-round as much as you want. I'll be happy to explain any of my decisions in more detail.

Have fun!

hi guys, uh, well... I know what you're thinking... "OH NO! A FIRST-YEAR LAY STUDENT JUDGE WHO SUCKS AT DEBATING!!!" well... uh... I mean I cant say that you're fully right, but I can't call you fully wrong either...

I literally try to draw no conclusions at all myself as judge-that means that if you want me to notice to think something, you're gonna have to tell me. I feel like if I did otherwise, my personal bias and stuff would just interfere with the round too much.

I'd like to think that I'm tech over truth, but I'm still not fully sure that means what I think it does lol so uh, just be good and you will win lol (that is what like half of parent judges put on their paradigms anyways you guys will be ok)

I don't flow cross, but listen to what you guys are saying--however, if you bring something up important in cross, make sure to extend that out to rebuttal, summary, etc.

Please just keep it civil, points will be deducted if you get too toxic (nobody likes that "debate kid," you know what I mean)

but uh, yeah. Good luck lol.

also I really appreciate a lil' bit of humor in debate-not too much, but a slight joke goes a long way...

I am a lay judge. I have been judging speech and debate for quite a while now. When it comes to debate, please read your case TO me not AT me. Don't bore me with random facts. During the debate, assume I know nothing about the topic. When it comes to framework, keep it simple and make sure your case follows your framework the entire time. Please always explain and weigh impacts and arguments. Don't be afraid to crack a few jokes and be humorous during debate speeches. As long as you are respectful and still on topic, go for it. I appreciate off time road maps to help me with flowing and ballots. Please speak clearly, don't spread and most importantly have fun!

I currently am mentoring a PF debate team. I aim to coach later on. I was a policy debater before, therefore I am familiar with the rules, techniques, and theory behind debate.

I have a high threshold for speed however I believe speech clarity (tone & articulation) to be much more important. Try not to go past 300wpm. Do not spread. I am more of a pragmatic thinker than a philosophical one. Evidence, practicality, and logic are fundamental in arguments. I have a certain threshold to theory, however as PF is now more common, the threshold is pretty low. Try to stick to the warrant and impact. Continuously stick to weighing, and collapsing on your oppn.'s core points. Sign posting, tagline, line-by-line, and flow are effective.

Attack the argument, not the person. Actively listening to the argument is the only way to attack the opposition effectively. Establish your framework. No CP, avoid K, and avoid suddenly adding a DA. Avoid adding new contentions after 1st rebuttal. Evidence should be reliable, robust, recent, and relevant. I pay extra attention to the quality of your cards.

Prep time - I am strict with times in general. With prep time, you stop what you are doing when it is the end of prep time. Be clear that you are using prep time. If the timer is not running, it is no one’s prep time. Do not steal prep.

Be respectful and use etiquette. Do not make oral signals or whisper/talk during an opponents’ speech.