//shree

I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.

I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.

My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.

This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:

1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.

2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.

3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from before 2020 or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.

4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.

5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.

6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.

7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.

8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.

9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.

10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.

PF: Most of my debate background is in policy. High school and college. PF debate should adhere to evidence standards. Full source citations and quotes in context. Challenges for full PDFs should be limited to serious questions regarding the source or quotes without sufficient context.

I am open to all types of argumentation provided work is devoted to development in round.

CD: I expect the same quality of evidence as any debate event. Arguments should be adequately supported with quality topic literature. As debate progresses on individual bills/resolutions, I expect participants to adapt to the evolving content. Developing arguments in nuanced and novel ways or refuting the opposition with sound analysis is necessary late in the debate.

stanbanks@gmail.com

I am a lay judge and am not familiar with very technical debate “jargon”. Plain English is my preference. I prefer to be hands off and let students determine the tone and tempo of the debate. I value strong, well reasoned arguments, backed by evidence over number of contentions. I like logical flow and follow through during a debate. I prefer moderate speed and can not understand when you spread! I prefer it when you hone in on some salient contentions by the end of the debate. I like teams to be respectful of each other. I prefer not to disclose.

I am a parent lay judge. Things to note to win vote and speaker points:

1. Don’t spread, and speak with clarity / conversational speed
2. Be respectful especially in crossfires
3. Follow NSDA PF technical rules e.g. “no new arguments after Summary”
4. Try not to use technical terms (delink etc) so I can follow

About me: I'm Mr. Bravim (pronounced brah-veem). 25 yrs. in speech & debate. Competed, judged, and coached all over (e.g. FL, D.C., Korea, China, Uganda).

Email: bravim@cghsfl.org

* Big Questions

No preference between real-world and philosophical evidence, but a combination is powerful! I like framing. I like big picture analysis. I like extended warrants. Pointed questioning and strong topic knowledge impress me a lot and should help you win a ballot in a close round.

Most of my experience judging BQ was in 2020 when Nationals was online. I approach BQ like a less flow-centric traditional LD round and the person who most clearly frames and resolves the "big question" will win the round, regardless of the flow. Each debater should aim to do that. I like this event and love the current topic. I wish BQ Debate were more mainstream outside of NSDA Nationals. FYI: I have above average knowledge on world religion and the history of science, but I will only use what you tell me in round.

* LD Prefs

I'm best at adjudicating traditional LD rounds. However, I will consider any warranted argument presented in round. Please weigh clearly and effectively and lay out the big issues in the round/voters. Tell me the clearest path to the ballot! I do not want to intervene. I find a quality framework debate/clash VERY interesting. If it's getting debate on fw is circular and/or the differentiation is minimal, go for something else.

Slow down on card tags, warrants, weighing, and voters. If the framework clash is a wash, I'll default to evaluating contention-level offense via the weighing analysis given to me at the end of the round. If I don't understand what you're talking about (speed, lack of clarity, lack of explanation, or warrants), there is NO CHANCE I'll vote off it. Thus, explain the argument/warrants not only in case, but throughout the round if you want me to vote off of it.

Spend time contextualizing your card/s if you're relying on it to win the round. Even if it was already done in your constructive, it's a good habit to cover it thoroughly a 2nd time in case I missed something.

Don't drop warrants in your extensions. I may not have gotten it in case and even if I did, I like to be reminded. Will not evaluate any argument in which the warrant is missing or unclear.

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- (please don't forget that all three are part of good debate)

Above all else, I favor clash and the resolution of clash by debaters with good overviews, weighing, and depth of topic knowledge.

In order of preference:

1.) Trad/lay 2.) Plan/CPs 3.) Ks 4.) Theory

I find most theory debates dull, but will listen to them if that's what you want to do. I've voted off theory maybe 4 times and I've judged a lot of LD rounds. I prefer you try to win anywhere else unless there is a flagrant, obvious, and clear violation of the tournament rules or NSDA rules. Above all, the quality of argument matters more to me than the style of debate. I don't mind some speed used strategically, but please don't spread throughout the round. I'd much rather you win one good argument on the flow and weigh than 10 smaller ones that I struggle to follow because of speed/clarity issues.

* PF Prefs

Overview: I remember the reasons PF was introduced as an event in 2002. I believe the spirit of PF necessitates a less technical, but ultimately more persuasive debate activity than policy or circuit LD. The idea that hyper-technical arguments would be advanced knowing the opponents will have problems even understanding what the argument is about is abhorrent to me. This ultimately lacks both in educational value and fairness. That said, I understand any event will evolve over 22 years and there are going to be different ways to gain in round advantage. I think running Ks, theory, and spreading should not be the norm in Public Forum. I think topical arguments with really good warrants and evidence are the best path for PF debaters. I think the round should be educational and accessible for teams, judges, and any observer who wishes to spectate the round. The notion that the only "good" debate is nat circuit-oriented is not only arrogant, but also wrong. I've witnessed 1,000+ debate rounds and seen poor argumentation all over the place.

I favor a lot of clash, well-developed links analysis, and an aggressive style of debate. Indicting evidence with quality arguments on why it matters in the context of the round impresses me. I enjoy pointed crossfire and will flow concessions and hold teams to them. Warrant everything. DO NOT DROP WARRANTS in your extensions. In PF, remind me of the big picture from summary onward.

Keep a consistent link story on your offense. If you have a particular lens (framework, observation, etc.) in which I should view the resolution, make sure it is well-warranted and extend throughout the round. I like clear framing mechanisms. I prefer a smaller # of voters (1 - 3) to many poorly-explained voters in FF. Weigh or risk judge intervention (I don't want to do it). You can't win on the flow if you don't tell me why the arguments matter by the end of the round.

On Speed: Moderate, occasional, and strategic use of speed in PF is OK if the other team + allthe judges can follow you. Never sacrifice clarity for speed. Don't bully your opponent with speed. That is not why PF was created. The vast majority of your speech should be understood by an ordinary person with no background in debate if you're doing it right. I much rather teams win 1 significant argument over a bunch of smaller, less-developed arguments on the flow. I dislike spreading in any debate event, but most especially in PF.

Evidence comparison is critical and a good way to impress. Please make warranted arguments why I should prefer your card over your opponent's card. There are many ways to accomplish this, I'll consider any of them so long as they make sense. FYI: One relevant, high-quality card is often better than 2 - 3 generic cards that are not contextualized. Extend card tags on every speech. Knowing your evidence really well and explaining it really well in round all but guarantees high speaks.

On theory: I've heard my share of theory arguments and find the majority of those rounds dull and the arguments thin. I much rather you win on something else, but will listen if this is your thing. : (

You can go line-by-line or be more analytical. Anything that is unclear will not get extended or weighed on the flow. Never forget that debate is foremost a PERSUASIVE activity. If you cannot persuade the average person with your case, you aren’t debating effectively. Ways to impress me as a judge: 1. Depth of Analysis, 2. Topic Knowledge, 3. Effective Advocacy, and 4. Clear Narrative. I value meaningful cross much more than most judges.

A pet peeve of mine in PF is summary treated as a 2nd rebuttal speech. That is not the point of summary! Show me the most important issues and why they favor your side, we already had 2 rebuttal speeches and summary is more than a shortened rebuttal.

--<< Logos / Ethos / Pathos >>-- (please don't forget that all 3 are part of effective argumentation)

* Congress Prefs

I despise 1-sided debate. If there's no one left on the other side, call the previous question, table the bill, or deliver an impromptu/extemp speech on the other side. If I hear the same exact points made without specific references to the arguments presented by the other side, points will be low.

I love clash in congress. I like pointed, direct questioning. I'm impressed by tactical use of parliamentary procedure. I value the role of the P.O. more than most. Don't be shy about running for P.O. If you're good at it, do it and I'll rank you fairly!

Critical evidence comparison & strong topic knowledge impress me a lot. Creative and/or funny intros make me happy.

PET PEEVES

1. Taking too long to set up for debate. (Be prepared, be punctual, be professional)

2. Taking too long to pull a called card from case (after 1 min. if the card doesn’t exist, drop the arg.)

3. Doc bots.

4. Boring me. Some have forgotten that there is a performance aspect to ALL debate events and that if you seem apathetic, I will care less about your argument if you don't appear to care about it. If you want me to vote for your argument, make the attempt to seem like you care about whatever you're running. You chose to run that. It's your baby.

Note: I don't disclose speaker points. Don't ask. I will disclose my decision if the tournament is single-flighted. If rounds are double-flighted, I will not disclose for the sake of time, but will publish my ballot.

FOR FUN

I <3 multivolume narrative nonfiction, dystopian & post-apocalyptic fiction, retro video games (mostly fighters), boxing, soccer, and cats. If you're bored at a tournament and have an interest in any of that stuff, come say hi! : )

Academic Interests:

I teach AP World History, AP European History, and AP Microeconomics on the high school level. I teach various business courses at the university level.

Topics in which I have some specialized knowledge include: world religion, modern history, organizational culture, business management, and law.

Good luck to all!

debated for american heritage (c/o 2023), did mostly pf and a little ld

few must-know notes:

1. add me to the email chain (evan.burkeen@yale.edu).
2. don't miscut evidence.
3. warrants are super important, every argument must have them (and no, empirics without arguments are still not arguments).

few notes that aren't must-knows but helpful

1. I care slightly less about impact weighing than the average pf judge, weighing is just an issue of sequencing for me so you might want to spend more time winning the link in front of me. terminal defense >>> "outweigh on scope."
2. extensions on arguments should be thorough. im voting based on the backhalf, and I need a thorough extension to consider voting for your argument. keep it simple.
3. I don't read off docs if you're unclear, I just won't flow.
4. default to dtd, competing interps, rvis, no sticky defense, NO new responses past rebuttal (and no defense disguised as probability weighing), presume neg, and util. can be easily convinced to change any of these in-round. note on new responses: they must be flagged by the opposing team; I'll easily miss them if not.
5. uniqueness thumpers, impact defense, impact turns, and methodology explanations are heavily underused and I appreciate them a lot.
6. im fluent in progressive argumentation. update: these rounds usually don't have good engagement, and they're just read to escape clash. if you read progressive arguments, read them well, or don't read them at all.

things that get you really good speaks

1. analytical debating, I prefer and respect this a lot more than reading off a doc with copy/paste blocks (original analysis is a great skill!) engaging in line-by-line and clash rather than generic overview-esque responses will be rewarded. not exactly a fan of the "let me spread 10 unwarranted responses, hope they drop 1 and go for that" type of debating, although I'll still (reluctantly) evaluate it.
2. keeping the round fun and light-hearted, annoying debaters (one example is if you're wildly aggressive in crossfire) will get a lot lower speaks! sarcasm, wit, etc. are also funny, but don’t do too much.
3. judge instruction (one example: "judge, they have conceded terminal defense on their only piece of offense coming out of summary. if we have a risk of offense at all that's enough for you to vote affirmative").
4. keeping the round running on time.

if you have any questions before or after the round, please contact me at “Evan Burkeen” on facebook messenger. please let me know if there are any accommodations I can make to make the round enjoyable, accessible, and comfortable for everyone. if you are new to debate, and have no clue what im talking about in this paradigm, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me. the best way to improve is by asking questions. if you’re looking for no-cost camps, you can visit novadebate.org.

In my 25th year as the head debate coach at Strake Jesuit. Prior to that I worked as a public defender.Persuasion, clarity, and presentation matter to me. I have a workable knowledge on many progressive arguments, but my preference is traditional, topical debate. Because I don't judge much, it is important to speak clearly and articulate the things that you want me to pay close attention to. If you go too fast and don't follow this advice you will lose me. I will not vote off of something that I don't understand. You need to make my path to your ballot clear. I like certain types of theory arguments and will vote off of them if there is a demonstrated abuse (topicality, disclosure, etc.). My firm belief is that you should debate the topic assigned. I also am a big fan of disclosure. I think that it levels the playing field for all involved. Drops matter. Impacting is important. Giving clear reasons why you are winning offense is the easiest way to pick up my ballot.

*For all email chains - email to jcrist1965@gmai.comand strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org - include both*

Debate success doesn't matter! Have fun and do what you love! Be a good person!

Hello! My name is Anna Dean (she/her). I will default to (they/them) if I don't know you.

Bentonville West High School '21 (AR) | Harvard '25

I currently debate at Harvard. In High School, I did: Policy (Bentonville West DR FOREVER.), Extemp, World Schools, a little bit of Congress/ LD.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic/etc I will vote you down, end of story. Your rhetoric and how you treat your opponents matter.

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain: annadean13@gmail.com

Time yourself.

Do what you do & do it well.

Speed is fine (in CX/LD) (slow down a bit online & emphasize clarity)

Truth over Tech

If you read 40 cards in the block = fascism

I love a good cross-ex :)

Win an impact.

Number your args... please.

You have not turned the case just because you read an impact to your DA or K that is the same as the advantage impact.

Don't clip cards.

If you're unclear I won't yell "clear" I just won't flow well...

Updated 2023: DO NOT GO FOR THEORY. Don't read tricks. I don't buy the bs. Win your arguments without tricking your opponents.

I do not like disclosure. I won't vote for it. You should be able to win without knowing exactly what your opponents are going to say(can't believe I have to even write this)

Policy:

KvK:

I like them if they're well done. I should say, I don't have immense knowledge of theory. I ran Fem, Fem Killjoy<3, Queer, Set Col, Cap in high school. In college, I've done Afropess, SetCol, and Fem stuff. I evaluate method v. method.

*I study Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. I have knowledge about gender/ feminism/ race critical theory and loveeeeee these arguments!

Plans:

Yes! I love a soft left AFF. My ideal round is a soft left aff and 3-6 off.

T:

I love T. Go for it. I think it's underutilized. I like procedural fairness impacts (when it's clearly an impact). If you want to win my ballot, paint a picture of what your vision of the topic is and what happens in debates on it, which matters much more to me than conceded generic blips and buzzwords.

Framework:

I lean more neg (60/40). IMPACTS.

DAs:

Yes, but they can get boring and overdone. I would rather read 5, solid, well-highlighted UQ cards than 10 poopy cards that say "it'll pass but it's cloooooseeee!" without ever highlighting anything beyond that sentence. Uniqueness controls the direction of uniqueness and the link controls the direction of the link.

CPs:

I tend to think condo bad (55/45). Some teams try to get away with murder. Yes, I will vote on 'condo bad'. I lean neg when the CP is based in the literature and there's a reasonable solvency advocate. I lean aff when the CP meets neither of those conditions.

Ks:

Focus on arg development & application rather than reading backfiles.

If your strategy involves going for some version of "all debate is bad, this activity is meaningless and only produces bad people" please consider who your audience is. Of course, you can make arguments about flaws in specific debate policies & practices, but you should also recognize that the "debate is irredeemable" position is a tough sell to someone who has dedicated 7+ years of her life to it and tries to make it better.

Examples are incredibly helpful in these debates, especially when making structural claims about the world.

LD:

I am policy debater at heart. I will flow every word you say. Speed is a weapon in debate.

I don't love theory/meta-theory/tricks. I find a lot of Philo debates have tricks. Please just win your arguments and do not trick your opponents. It is extremely rare I vote on it.

I am good for more policy-oriented theory arguments like condo good/bad, PICs good/bad, process CPs good/bad, etc.

See above for more specifics.

PF:

Send your docs and create an email chain from the get-go! Every other debate style has managed to learn this. Stop asking for evd without taking prep, just send everything and be fair.

I'm not flowing off the doc and probably won't look at it unless I have to.

Act as if I don't know the topic

I'm good for speed/ more policy like args BUT I do think that PF is changing in a negative way, if you want to do policy why are you in PF...

Congress:

Speak well. You are role-playing a policymaker... act like it.

Be prepared to speak on both sides of the bill.

I value evidence and credible sources.

DO NOT re-hash args.

Extemp:

I love good intros and transitions! I love to laugh a lil in an extemp round!

Organization is key!

I value evidence and credible sources.

I stay very up to date on current events... I will know what you're talking about... take that as you wish:)

Best of luck to you! If you have questions feel free to ask me before a round or email me!

About Me:

I'm a 6th year Speech and Debate Coach. I prefer you speak at a conversational speed always. Slightly above is also good, but try not to spread, especially in PF (Super Fast Rebuttals/Summaries are pretty cringe and hard to flow).

I don’t mind different forms of argumentation in LD. Ks, Plans, Counterplans, etc are all ok in my book. Not a fan of progressive cases in PF, but I will still listen to them.

Not a fan of Theory-shells in Debate at all. Unless there was a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS violation in the round, do not run it.

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

Keep track of your own time. Just let me know when you run prep is all.

Signpost so I can follow on the flow. If I miss an argument because you pull a House of Pain and "Jump Around" without signposting, that is on you.

I will always vote in favor of the side with better quality arguments and better comparative analysis of the biggest impacts in the round, not the side that is necessarily "winning the most arguments."

At this point I would consider myself a flow judge (though not SUPER technical), and I value tech over truth more often than not.

More "techy" stuff:

Frameworks should always be extended. If your opponent doesn't respond to it in 1st or 2nd rebuttal, it needs to be extended into 2nd rebuttal or 1st Summary in order for me to evaluate the arguments under that framework. Teams who speak 1st do not necessarily need to extend their FW into their 1st rebuttal, but should provide some context or clarification as to why the framework is necessary for the round (can be included in an overview). If there are 2 frameworks presented, please explain why I need to prefer yours over the opponent. If no explanation is provided or extended, I will default to my own evaluation methods (typically cost/benefit analysis)

I like when teams focus summaries on extending offense and weighing, more specifically explain to me why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s. Don’t just say “(Impact card) means we outweigh on scope,” then move on to the next point. I love details and contextualization, and will always favor quality weighing over quantity.

Please collapse. Please. It helps to provide focus in the round rather than bouncing around on 20 different arguments. It just makes my life as a judge much easier.

Use FF to crystalize and highlight the most important points of contention and clash that you believe are winning you the round (things like offense and turns that go unresponded to, for example). Explain to my why I should vote for you, not why I should not vote for the other side. Voter Issues are always a good thing, and can possibly win you the round in a close debate.

LD Stuff:

If your plan is to spread, and I cant follow on the flow and miss things, that is on you. LD's purpose was intended to separate itself from Policy tactics and allow argumentation that anyone off the streets can follow. Call me a traditionalist or whatever, but spreading just to stack arguments is not educational and hurts the activity. You cant convince me otherwise so dont try.

Im perfectly OK with any kind of case, but my preference is this order: Traditional>K>Disads/Plans/CPs>Theory (only run if there is perceived actual abuse in round, dont run frivolous stuff)

Not super knowledgeable on all the nuances of LD, but I do enjoy philosophical debates and am vaguely familiar with contemporary stuff.

Add me on the email chain: josemdenisjr@gmail.com

Hi! I’m only familiar with the basics of debate and speech events so keep that in mind during your round. Please make sure you talk at an understandable pace and enunciate. Don’t use technical terms and keep track of your own prep time. Most importantly, make sure to keep it respectful with me as well as your opponents!

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com.

Add (for email chains): strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and now coach. Most results are viewable here.

I view debate as a communicative, research-centric game. Winning requires you to persuade me. The following should give you enough information to do so:

General

I dislike dogma and judge debates more from a "tech" perspective than "truth", although the two often go hand-in-hand.

Quality evidence matters. Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed. Sounds analytics can be convincing, but usually not blips.

I will not vote for arguments I cannot make sense of.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. I flow by ear.

Cross-ex is binding otherwise it's useless. Bring up relevant concessions in a speech.

By default, I presume for the side that defends the status quo.

Evidence practices

Send speech docs before you speak. This should include all the cards you plan on introducing. Marking afterwards does not require prep.

Stop the round and conducting an evidence challenge if you believe someone is violating the rules.

Avoid paraphrasing.

PF

Defense is not sticky.

Second rebuttal should frontline.

Extensions are relevant not for the purpose of ticking a box but for clarity and breaking clash.

Cards should have descriptive taglines.

I like to reward creativity.

My threshold for non-utilitarian framing is higher than most.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

I dislike the pre-fiat and IVI trend.

Theory

These debates may have more intervention than you'd like.

I dislike heavily semantical and frivolous theory debates.I believe that paraphrasing is bad and disclosure (OS in particular) is good. That said, I am not a hack.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in next speech.

Ks

Be familiar with your stuff and err on the side of over explanation.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponents actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Good for Fwk and T.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mud-slinging.

Tricks.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before start time.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

Cypress Bay High School

Wake Forest University

Baylor University

Good speaks for good debating, great speaks for being funny and/or just great debating.

I'll vote for anything, just turn up. What follows are my existing thoughts/biases on how to win in front of me in policy debates, please scroll to the bottom for LD and PF.

Email: robertofr99@gmail.com

CX Paradigm: NDT Updates 3/29/23

T: I don't hold strong enough opinions about topic wording and plans to stand by in a debate so judge direction on what SHOULD matter is critical. I don't judge many though and because of that I'd say I'm more likely to default to competing interpretations than not. It would have to be a pretty clear case for me to vote on reasonability. End of year thoughts: nothing is AI and everything is nature; T-subsets is mostly valid.

FW: You can go for it. Thoughts: Unlike other judges, I think to win you need to prove your model is strictly better than a model that includes the aff, which means you should probably be able to prove that a solely plan-based model would be better than the mixed status quo.

I default to thinking of these as debates about models and not about interpretations of the wording of the resolution. That means I prefer that the aff have a counter-interp, even if that counter-interp is totally unlimited. What matters is that both teams have a vision of what their model looks like. No counter-interp is also valid and often strategic so feel free to do that too.

I won't say whether fairness is an impact because that depends on what is said and won in any given debate, but what I will say is that proving that debate is a game does not, on its own, strongly imply that fairness is an intrinsic good. Fairness is also a sliding scale, so I expect nuance about the magnitude of the internal link between the violation or the counter-interp and the fairness impact.

I think that FW teams would benefit from incorporating some kind of uniqueness argument or warrant into their skills modules that substantiates why the skills we learn from plan-based debating are valuable in the current political moment. I often find that teams lose debates where they are winning their limits arguments by failing to justify the value of THIS fair game.

K: Do whatever, odds are I've read something you are reading or someone citing else citing the same people as your authors. That means jargon is fine as long as it's used meaningfully. Big words are meant to convey even bigger ideas in less time so using jargon precisely can really elevate the quality of your speech, but on the other hand, just stringing words together without much thought may really hurt your speech. Performance debate is great, all kinds of art can be evidence as long as I can see/hear/flow it (unless there's a reason I shouldn't I'm up for that too, but I won't stop flowing your opponents speeches during the debate even if you ask me to, that is up to them).

CP: I guess this is more about conditionality than anything, I'd rather not have to deal with more than 4 or 5 conditional advocacies or I might actually vote on condo. I think most counter-plans should have solvency advocates, I can't think of an example that wouldn't off the top of my head but I'm hesitant to say I wouldn't be convinced by ANY CP without one.

DAs: I think the spill-over DA is just a bad argument. If you win it you win it but I feel like I have to be upfront about thinking this argument is garbage.

LD Paradigm:

I'm down with anything, except for really outlandish tricks and some frivolous theory. You could still win "Topic auto-affirms/negates because of definitions" in front of me but my bar is as low as "even if that's true we should ignore it and debate a common understanding of the resolution for X, Y, Z reasons" for me to throw away those kinds of arguments. I have a very deep background in critical theory and philosophy so Phil, K debating, and Skep are all fine by me as long as you remember to explain why I should vote for you rather than just exposing on an argument and hoping that will translate to a win. I like evidence, but evidence can be poetry, music, art, memes, etc. as long as it's used to substantiate something and not just presented without argument.

PF Paradigm:

You should read my other paradigms to get an idea of what I think of different types of arguments, this section is mostly dedicated to what I think of PF norms.

I care about evidence more than most PF judges, I don't think you shouldn't be allowed to reference current events to make points but I think having evidence prepared is definitely more convincing than listing off things that I may or may not have heard of to prove a point. I will want to receive any evidence you use in the debate, so that I can evaluate the comparative quality of evidence when deciding things after the debate. I will prefer low quality delivery of high quality arguments over high quality delivery of low quality arguments.

I will not deduct speaker points for superficial things like profanity or dress, I care about rhetoric as a tool of persuasion and information exchange not as a show of pageantry. Be intentional about what you are saying and why are you are saying it, and I will reward you based on the persuasiveness of that delivery.

Please be respectful to your opponents, your partner, and me in debates, and that means being respectful of our time during prep and cross-examination. If people ask to see your evidence, don't make them waste prep time for you to send it to them, they should already have it.

If you have any specific questions about types of arguments in PF or norms, please feel free to ask me. As a general rule, if it exists in policy or LD I'm willing to vote for it but also willing to vote against it on the basis that these arguments are illegitimate in PF, you just have to actually win that.

General:

ALWAYS ask permission to spread.

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

Public Forum:

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

If you try to run a theory case, just know it has a 99% chance of falling flat and failing with me.

Signposting is appreciated, but not required.

Stick to the time restrictions. I'll cut you off if you go too far over.

Avoid interrupting someone or speaking over your opponent, particularly during cross rounds. Only interject when absolutely necessary.

Don't let things go- if something goes unrefuted, that's another easy ballot to submit.

Student Congress:

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

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

Please behave like actual senators; failure to do so can impact your ranking.

(I mostly flow in my head because i have a strange brain so fear not if you dont see me typing)

Spencergrosso@gmail.com (Yes, I want to be on the chain)

Debated PF on the national circuit for 5 years

-Tech>Truth, debate is a game

-Speed is fine, I’ll yell clear up to twice in one speech, If you continue to be unintelligible after that, it’s on you. (I’m not yelling clear in online debate. Send me speech docs and be clear)

PF rules:

-Offense is offense and offense must be warranted and weighed. I don't care if it was brought up in case or rebuttal, i dont care if you called it a contention, turn, ad/disad, overview, whatever. If you give me a reason to vote for you, it must be weighed. I won't care about the "turn" you spent 10 seconds on and didn't implicate in any way just because your opponents dropped it.

-Any offense brought up in either 1st constructive or 1st rebuttal not responded to by second rebuttal is considered dropped.

-Defense doesn’t need to be frontlined until 2nd sum but its still smart to do it in 2nd rebuttal.

-Everything that you want me to vote on should be in both the final and the summary except I don’t require defense in first summary.

General preferences/leanings:

-I default to consequentialism/utilitarianism, but I’m open to looking at the round through a different lens if I am given a warrant as to why I should and I'm pretty good about that I've voted based off anti util framework many times.

-I tend to prefer strong, clear link chains over big sounding impacts that may or may not have a risk of solvency to them, but again if you do good meta weighing as to why I should prefer your 0.001% probability solvency for human extinction, I’m open to it.

-I heavily despise exclusion. If I can tell your opponents either have access problems or are brand new to debate and you’re dumping 300+ WPM speech docs, reading something progressive, or debating in any way that is clearly designed to make your opponents unable to contest you, I'll doc speaks.

Evidence Rules:

-The more evidence you send me, the better. If both teams are comfortable just emailing their full cases ideally with cards at the start, I like that. Same with rebuttal is awesome. I'll never look for holes in your evidence unless they are specifically pointed out to me by your opponents, so you lose nothing by giving me evidence.

-I’m generally lax with paraphrasing as long as I feel the literal words of the card are accurately represented by what you read.

Non Ad/Disad argumentation:

Be explicit on role of the ballot and why I prefer one type of argument versus another, if you don’t, I will default to: Policy/Framework>Kritik>theory>tricks.

Framework:

-Cool stuff.

Kritiks:

-I’m open to them and I’m even kind to them as long as you’re clear with the link and the implication in every extension. I find a lot of debaters assume they’re winning a link on the K if it goes uncontested so they undercover it when extending it into later speeches. Just like any other argument, if you drop warrants, I drop you.

Theory:

-It is my belief that theory needs to exist to prevent real abuse and encourage education, so I tend not to look too kindly on theory that I see as being brought into the round which sacrifices educational value for the sake of getting a win (dates, disclosure, paraphrasing etc.) that being said I’m open to all those shells, if you warrant it, win it, and weigh successfully why I should vote off it, I’ll vote off it.

-In PF, I don’t necessarily require responses to theory in the very next speech(if it’s read in 1st constructive, I don’t require a response until 2nd rebuttal) this is because I think theory should be normalized as typical argumentation so people feel more comfortable when it is run, so I treat it as a normal argument in terms of rules when responding to it.

Tricks:

-To win with tricks, you have to do the following:

1. Warrant why it gives you a path the ballot

2. Opponent must drop it

3. There must literally be no other offense in the round, I will quite literally evaluate any risk of any kind of offense before I evaluate your a priori.

Presumption:

-I don’t grant presumption on my own, u need to tell me to do it. I’m pretty open to the logic behind presuming 1st so if you argue that, I’ll probably grant it to u.

Speaker Points:

-The speaker point system is the scurge of debate, it perpetuates all types of prejudices, is anti educational, and unfair. I refuse to legitimize it. They NEED to be abolished. (If you're curious why I believe this, feel free to ask!) Here's how I do it: You start with a 30. Speaks are docked only for malpractice(rude, prejudice, debating in a way I deem as harmful) If you don’t commit any sins, you get a 30. If the tournament doesnt let me tie it, ill do 30, 29.9, 29.8, 29.7.

FOR NOVICE STATES: They have silenced my ability to exercise my judging philosophy, I have been threatened with being removed from the pool for giving 30s, so I'll have to give lower points. This is a horrible overreach of tab, but I have to comply so my school doesn't get fined.

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD TIME YOURSELVES AND TIME EACH OTHER. If anyone asks me to time them I will quite literally start crying and I'm an ugly crier so we all lose in that scenario.

As a judge, I prefer for debates to stay on resolution / topic, does that mean I am more traditional, yes. The formats were formed for a reason and that should be followed. If you get too progressive, well please see what I initially started my paradigm with. As for speed, can flow very well, however if it sounds like you are choking and cannot breathe, well you just dropped those contentions, cards, points, whatever you were trying to establish. In most things, quality outweighs quantity, like do you attend three, four, five colleges at once, no, no you do not that, you pick the one of highest quality and focus on that, so in that vein, remember, this is not policy, but either PF or LD and looking for quality during the rounds. Please respect each other and have a great debate

General: Hi I'm Prateek! I debated LD at American Heritage Broward. I am pretty comfortable with most things so don't adapt, just do whatever you want as long as you are clear. I will try to intervene as little as possible so everything below is merely a slight preference. People who influenced how I see debate are Stephen Scopa and Spencer Orlowski. Be nice and if there are any accommodations I can make to help you let me know :) My email is:

prateekdebate@gmail.com

Cheat sheet:

1 - Ks/Topical K affs/Substantive Phil Affs or NCs

2 - Theory/Tricks/Non-T K affs

2/3 - LARP

3/4 - Traditional debate

Ks

Love K debates - I love hearing new lit so read whatever you want! Cool k strats are going for links as DA or floating PIKs

Non-T affs: Go for it! Be creative and engage as much as possible (whether you're reading it or debating against it)

Phil

Also love phil debates. Cool phil strats are skep triggers/contingent standards, hijacks, and NC AC

T/Theory

I think these are entertaining. I did more theory than T but both are fun to watch. I will default to competing interps, yes RVIs. If DTA/DTD or voters aren't read I'll prob just look to substance. Just go slower than you would reading the text of a card

LARP

I enjoy it but I just didn't do it a lot. Explain and you'll be good :) Cool LARP strats are impact turns, unique PICs, and case dumps.

Tricks

Go for it but slow down

Trad Debaters

I like trad debate as well, do what you do!

For Policy

Everything above applies EXCEPT theory stuff. I understand that policy paradigm issues are different so I will default competing interps, no RVIs, and drop the debater but impacting out fairness and education would be appreciated.

For PF

Defense isn't sticky - extend everything you want to be in final in summary

I think progressive arguments are cool but if you're not comfy with them you don't have to read them, I can evaluate substance too and if you have questions about anything else lmk before round. Same things for theory as policy

I'm currently a junior at the University of Michigan and I debated at NSU for 4 years. Gonna keep this paradigm short and sweet.

- 2nd rebuttal has to frontline turns and preferably terminal defense. I also prefer collapsing and weighing in 2nd rebuttal as well but that's not necessary. Weigh to make my decision simple.

- Speed is fine as long as you are being clear, and send speech docs if asked by the other team.

- For progressive arguments: I will evaluate theory. Read a K at your own discretion- be explicit and dumb it down if you do.

- Your final focus should be telling me what to write on my ballot.

- Just please have fun, that's what this is all about. Keep the round lighthearted with jokes and humor

If you have any specific questions just ask me in the room.

I am a parent lay judge; I have judged both local and nat circ tournaments over the last 3 years.

I prefer signposting and clear discussion of what contentions you are addressing/rebutting. I appreciate when you point out such things as, "Aff never addressed our contention that..." or "Our impact of ___ outweighs their impact of ___."

Do not speak too quickly (ie, I will deduct speaks for spreading).

Please keep track of your time (but I will also be keeping track, because I do not enjoy watching a team cheat the other team out of prep time- yes, I have witnessed rounds like that).

I understand when some judges say "tech > truth," but that is not applicable to the rest of life. If your contention is outlandish and defies logic, then it should not win.

I value respectful communication: NO STEAMROLLING. This is one of the last places where civil discourse is encouraged. Therefore, rude behavior will cost you speaker points, if not the match (yes, I have witnessed rounds like that).

Lastly, I believe that some of the brightest minds are competing at these tournaments, and that we are all works in progress (judges included).

PF/LD:

E-mail:Hrenj@trinityprep.org

If you are looking for my paradigm in a few words:

I will start by looking at theimpactsas articulated in your final speech.I will thencompare them the way I was told to in your final speech(ex. Prefer on Timeframe. Prioritize probability). If there are competing comparisons, I will choose the one that is best articulated. I will then checkthe link to the impact and see if, in the final speech and previous speech, the other team told me a reason not to give the you access to your impact.If they did, I will make sure that this reason was articulated, at least from the second speech of that team.

My flow can be best described as chaotic, so make sure that you have been really clear and not blippy- if you are blippy, I am liable to miss it.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I have experience judging LD at the College and High School level (but it has been a little bit since I have consistently judged LD) and Public Forum at the High School level (fairly consistently). I would by no means say I am an expert. These are some things to keep in mind with me.

Assume that I know nothing. This includes shorthand, theory, or K literature. Even if I do know something, I will pretend I don't to avoid intervening in the round.

Speed Kills (your ability to win the round).I want to be able to flow everything.To this end, I will say “clear” two times and then I am able to flow what I can flow: if I miss something because you’re speeding then it won’t be considered.I do not want to look at cards unless you or your opponent have a tiff about what they actually say.

Additionally, I think that spreading should be a tool to allow for deeper and more specific arguments as opposed to allowing for more short, blippy responses.If you're speeding through a response and that response was only a sentence or two to begin with, it probably doesn't register as that important to me.

Tech over truth except in extreme cases.Tell me what to vote on, tell me what to care about. Clearly weigh your impacts against your opponents do not assume I prefer one over the other without you giving me a reason to prefer.

I care about dropped arguments- you need to extend and that means more than just saying “extend.”Functionally reiterate your arguments or at least summaries of them.

CX- I often will flow this, but it will not factor into my decisions unless you bring it up in your speech. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot, DO use this time to clarify, NOT make new arguments.

I hate hate hate people being hyperbolic or lying about what their opponent said or did: Ex. “they dropped this point” when they clearly did not. Just know if you do it I will be inclined toward your opponent. If YOU misheard or misunderstood your opponent’s argument, I get that, but pretending they didn’t respond to something they did is as good as dropping the arg. Also- don't tell me what my paradigm said- I was there when it was written.

Congress:

-The most important things to me are delivery and content.

-If two people are very close on both these aspects content will be more important than delivery.

-I pay attention to questioning, but it is more of a tie breaker for me. If you ask a particularly good question I will note it and you will be ranked higher than someone with the same scores on speeches and no notes about questioning.

-Very important to my ranking of speeches is whether you are moving the round forward or introducing new ideas.

-I prefer evidence usage, though in some analytic cases it is not strictly needed.

-I very much like interaction with the other speeches that have gone (rebutting directly or adding more to a previous argument).

-Taking risks with content or delivery in ways which push the boundaries of the norms will certainly earn some bonus points in my head.

-I think that decorum is important- pay attention to what others are saying, don't engage in personal attacks or generally be rude.

Hello! I am a parent judge without formal debate training. I will listen attentively to both sides with as little personal bias as possible and take notes. Please speak clearly and logically. Please keep your rate of delivery conversational and avoid jargon. Arguments should be clearly extended from speech to speech, with the last speech telling me what a ballot for your side looks like and why that is a better option than a ballot for your opponent. I will vote for any argument that is reasonable and has an impact. Additionally, I will only vote based on the information offered to me during the round. I do not evaluate progressive argumentation. Be kind and respectful to everyone in the room. Please time yourselves.

Contact: minfanti@preferredsettlement.com

Hello, I am Michael Infanti . I am a lay judge and am the parent of a public forum debater. I am truth over tech and prefer a slow speaking pace. I am not familiar with
theory. Please wear professional attire and be respectful to your opponents. Providing a roadmap at the beginning of your speech is helpful. Please keep your own time as I am unfamiliar with the time constraints. I enjoy a well-developed narrative/argument that I can understand from beginning to end. I am an attorney and enjoy finance. I do not wish to engage in politics and please steer clear of offensive topics.

brand new Parent Judge. Please talk slowly and clearly

will give high speaks
To help me follow speeches, please send cases to my email nan.jiang1@gmail.com

few things to keep in mind
1. Be nice and respectful
2. NO debate jargon
3. Be persuasive
4. Keep track of time and don't abuse it
5. Most importantly, have fun

I will not disclose

Cross will be an important section in which I will listen to

TLDR: Hello, my name is Sri, and I'm a LAY

Some of my preferences:

- I can handle speed well enough. Don't spread.

- Clarity- especially if you're speaking fast, please enunciate and do not mumble.

- Please weigh comparatively.

- Implicate- don't just read off responses from your block file, tell me individually why each refutation matters/its impact and why I cannot buy your opponent's arguments.

- Signpost- always tell me where you are in the speech. It helps with my flow. If I don't know what you're saying, or why you're saying it, I likely won't flow it.

- Please be respectful to your opponents. Being aggressive is fine, but don't say anything rude. I will take speaker points off for that.

- Time- I will usually keep track of prep and speech time, but I encourage you to do so as well!

- Extending- please extend your argument in every speech!

- Please don't be abusive. No new arguments in final focus.

- Evidence- if your opponents ask for a card, you should be able to retrieve it within a minute.

- Intervention- I will seldom intervene in a debate round. I will only do so if I find any cards suspicious and I'll call for them.

- I am very objective.

Speaker points guide:

29-30- Perfect--keep up the good work!

27-28- you're either average or a little above average. You're on the right track!

25-26- you might have said something offensive or rude, or you didn't do a great job in the round overall.

My email id to add to the email chain : kv.sridhar@gmail.com

Good luck!

• Please add me to all email chains - my email is kasturiv@gmail.com
• Hi - My name is Vijay Kasturi - I'm from Austin, TX and a parent of high school senior VPF debater.
• This is the first time that I've judged this event.
• I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging.
• Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate a clear and convincing summary/analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

***ALL cards read during ANY speech need to be sent in the email chain PRIOR to the speech. If you are not comfortable adapting to this standard, please strike me

North Broward '20 Wake Forest '24

Quartered @ TOC and have minimal college policy experience

Head Public Forum Coach @ Quarry Lane

Email: katzto20@wfu.edu

tech>truth

I would prefer both teams talk about the topic. I have given up on judging bad PF theory / K debates.

debate is a game and the team that plays the best will win.

Hello. I have debated briefly in congress and in public forum. I am not too informed of the current resolution, so consider me as a lay judge (no theory). I prefer a slower/normal speaking pace (no spreading) and prioritize weighing in rounds. I always appreciate good refutations and front lining. I was previously a second speaker and look for a good rebuttal as a deciding factor. I take cross-examination into high consideration in my decisions, and I like to see people stand their ground. As for presentation, I look for eye contact and engagement to truly decide my final vote.

Aaron Kim (He/They)

UChicago Lab '22

Emory '26

debate.ajk@gmail.com

Top Level:

• Follow the flow
• Include judge instruction
• Little to no topic knowledge
• I generally decide debates quickly---this is not a referendum on the quality of the debate
• You have to stake the round if you make an ethics violation

PF (Sunvite)

I have never judged PF before and will default to lay judging.

Specifics:

K Affs / FW: I am more likely to vote on technical drops (Ballot PIKs and don't weigh the case) than most. Consolidate offense in the rebuttals and don't go for too much. I think fairness is generally an impact but obviously needs an explanation for why it is such. Both teams should have explanations for how the ballot resolves offense.

T: Probably the area of the topic I've done the least research. Strongly tech over truth, will vote for any T interp or against any T interp given sufficient evidence comparison and impact calc. Better for competing interps than reasonability.

K: I've read a lot of K's, from a slew of identity K's, post modernism, etc. The negative should commit to a 2NR that either is a fiat K or uses K tricks in order turn case and outweigh.

CP: No hot takes, probably more likely to vote for Process CP's than most. Competition is probably the best strategy, whether it's PDCP or limited intrinsic perms. Affs should impact out each deficit and compare it to the net benefit, otherwise the RFD will start with "I think there was a deficit but didn't understand why the difference in solvency outweighed the net benefit." I don't judge kick unless told.

DA: No hot takes, Will vote aff on smart analytics against dumb DA's. Don't love politics, do love econ.

Misc: The more cards with the initials "DKP" you read, the higher speaks you get.

I’m a parent volunteer judge, have judged Speech and PF, LD debate for several years, but I am new to Congressional and Policy debate.

Your performance will be assessed based on what your deliver and how you deliver. I am a scientist, I like straightforward, well developed and evidence supported contentions and arguments. I appreciate spot on rebuttals and effective debates. I don't judge if your arguments are right or wrong, I vote for the team who is more convincible based on your defense and offense.

Don't overwhelm your case with numerous sources but rather select the best evidence to support your argument. Use reputable, unbiased sources and succinctly connect all evidence back to your contentions. It is your responsibility to challenge the evidence provided by your opponents. I don't do fact check for you.

Please speak at an understandable pace (no spreading!). If you're speaking too quickly, I may not be able to flow, and you may at the risk of losing those arguments.

In your final speech, please clearly state the reasons why you think your should win.

I expect you to be respectful and civil throughout the debate. Sarcasm and intolerance for your opponents will lose you speaker points.

TLDR: parent judge, don't be a meanie

for debate:

no spreading

no prog

will give you max speaks if you do your whole speech in fluent chinese

I am new to judging so please make it a bit slower and clearer for me.

I am a volunteer judge with three years of judging experience.My judging includes a fair amount of note taking, documentation and attention to details in regards to some of the following.First and foremost I am looking for the team that overwhelmingly persuaded me to believe in their arguments.In doing that I look for confident teams, speed is not an issue as long as it is used wisely.Secondly, I appreciate teams that can properly roadmap and flow through their debate.It helps with my documentation technique and provides a fair understanding of what the intention of the upcoming narrative will entail.Lastly, I look for teams that are passionate in delivering their facts, an emotional angle, a relevant example, or an empathetic point that is backed up by citations will be valuable to me as a judge.

1. Section 230 is very complicated so please include definitions for section 230, explain every link, impact warrant and make sure you have quality evidence for all of those
   1. general debate norms: no spreading(talking extremely quickly), no progressive debate (no theory, ks, performances), no tech over truth debate, crossfire is important to me so make sure you don't dance around questions and ensure that you can answer questions on the spot

Email: ethan3768@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Ethan and I debated for West Broward in Florida for 4 years. I received 9 bids and broke at the TOC - won the Valley Mid America Cup, Harvard RR, Florida States, etc.

There are a couple of things that generally contextualize my views on debate and how you should probably debate in front of me.

I am Tech > Truth. Naturally, if your arguments are both technical and true, that makes you a better debater. I will not assume something is true though just because a "claim" is dropped. It actually needs to be an argument with justified implications that follow.

My threshold for what constitutes a warrant is fair, but high for LD's standards - you need to justify the assumptions that your arguments make. The standard for what is considered a "votable" argument in LD has become exceptionally low and you should keep that in mind when you debate in front of me. I see this issue most when people "justify" theory paradigm issues.

General:

I won't evaluate

1] new 2nr arguments and/or implications that directly are used to answer something in the 1ac. Weighing is fine but I will not evaluate arguments that answer something from the 1ac. That means no GSP or skep turns case in the 2nr unless it was in the 1nc. Only exception is if new offense was read in the 1ar.

2] non-sequitur arguments or arguments where conclusions don't necessarily follow from premises.

3] won't evaluate speeches early INSIDE of the speech the argument was read in. Yes eval after 2n in 1nc, No eval after 2n in 2n.

Theory: One of the things I feel most comfortable evaluating. Coming up with a smart combo shell or making cool strategic decisions are awesome and make judging a lot more fun. I'm perfectly fine with theory as a strategic tool so if this is what you like to do, I'm all for it. There's no such thing as frivolous theory.

Defaults - DTA, Reasonability, No RVIs. NSM vs IRA assumption depends on offense to the shell. These are paradigm issues, not voters. These are the defaults because this is what any paragraph argument on any flow would look like as long as an external impact (fairness, bindingness, scope, etc) is justified.

I don’t default voters (Fairness/Ed/Etc) - they’re impacts to arguments. I will assume there’s no impact to the standards if you don't read an external impact.

You NEED to justify drop the debater and fairness is a voter. I do not like having to hold the line on the impacts to the shell but it has become considerably common for debaters to assume warrants that aren't there. Please warrant your paradigm issues; yes, that means you need to explain why dtd "deters abuse". I think the warrant is best when it's comparative to dta because if the baseline for why dtd matters is it just "deters" abuse, that's a low bar for dta to meet.

Don't read new paradigm issues for a 1nc shell in the 2n, it's new.

T: I view it as an endorsement > punishment model. It's a methods debate so winning the shell is prob enough to independently justify voting on it. These are just defaults if no one reads paradigm issues though. Obviously, I'll evaluate the shell under whatever metric you justify.

Policy: I never debated this way but I'll evaluate these debates the way you tell me to. The jargon is not exactly vernacular to me so I'd probably err on the side of explaining the implication of something for like 2 seconds if you think I wouldn't get it. Underrated strategy though against phil debaters and I do like it.

Tricks: Sure. I like warrants though. I'm also tired of analytic dumps where arguments are all over the place.

K: Better off preffing someone else. I'm a sucker for extinction o/w and frankly true arguments that say 1nc evidence has no warrants. If you cut good evidence though, that's solid. Bar for explanation is high and I don't listen to arguments that demean another debater's identity. Theory of power needs to be clear and 2n explanation needs to be found in the 1nc.

If you're reading this before a PF round consider: skip to the bolded "this is a note for PF" which is about my views on evidence. Otherwise do what you want in round; have fun, go crazy. Read the rest of the paradigm if you have time, but it's mostly about LD/Policy.

General Thoughts:

1. I encourage you to ask me specific questions before the round. Asking me general questions (EG: "How would you describe your paradigm", etc.) before the round won't prompt me to give you very helpful answers. Just be specific with your questions and we'll be good, I'm happy to answer any questions I can. If you have questions that are going to determine or guide your strategy in round then ask them! But I'm not great at summarizing all my thoughts for you on the spot.

2. Tech over truth in nearly every regard, I want to see your arguments and responses to opponents'. Give me clear, evidenced links to support impact scenarios and narrativize them well. I will avoid judge intervention in almost all cases and to the extreme. That is to say, to put yourself in the best position to win I want to see you clearly defend and weigh your points because I will not weigh them for you. I will not automatically default to one position over another when given no reasons to prefer. From a strategic standpoint, it is in your best interest to give me a framework by which to evaluate your impacts even if that framework is localized to weighing your impact.

3.Extensions through ink are usually okay- if it's something critical to your round strategy, especially if it interacts with your opponents' case (e.g. a turn) you shouldprobably be doing at least a little more than this. If you're making an argument that I should invalidate or eliminate entire components of what your opponent has read/said in round, it makes sense to give me at least a brief warrant for why each clust of arguments should be dropped- why does your defense apply toall the things you say it does? Why would I group those arguments that way? Make sure you're implicating and warranting effectively here.

4. I'm always happy to answer questions and listen to concerns/criticisms of my decisions afterwards. I want to get better and so do you, why not help each other. However, I will not change my decision, even if you convince me I've made the wrong one- the best you'll get is a "huh, you're right."

5.THIS IS A NOTE FOR PF. If it takes you longer than 15 seconds to find a card that you claim to have, I will ask you if you want to run YOUR prep time to find it. If you say "yes" then carry on, but maybe consider familiarizing yourself with your evidence so you can find it quicker. If you say "no" then that evidence won't "exist" until you demonstrate that it's real (which could include reading it in the next speech, though that might be too late if your opponents speak between when you cite it and then). Obviously I will be understanding if there are technical difficulties (IE internet cutting out, computer crashing) which I have been made aware of.

Also, while we're on evidence in PF, sending just like, a link to a website isn't great. If your opponent doesn't interact with it I will probably take you at face value, but know that there is a chance (slight) that I will, unprompted, click your link and read the article and if it says something other than what you claimed then I will intervene to vote against you because of this. I won't do this with a cut card unless someone in the round makes it an issue. TL;DR: If you're sending just hyperlinks to articles make sure they say what you claim.

Speed: Sure. I can keep up as long as you are able to maintain clarity. I will call speed if you go too fast, and I encourage you to call speed on your opponent if they are going too fast for you. I will begin docking speaker points on the third time I have to call speed, and if your opponent calls a third time you should expect a good hit to your speaker points. This isn't necessarily a voting issue for me (unless your opponent makes it a voting issue). I definitely want to be on the speechdrop/email chain (though I prefer speechdrop). mightybquinn@gmail.com.

AFF: I prefer topical AFFs. I am open to listening to an engaging K AFF (or if your opponent doesn't call T then I guess run whatever you want, obviously), but I would still prefer to listen to a topical AFF. I strongly prefer AFFs that include a plan text of some sort (even if it's a vague/open-ended plan text). I don't like the idea of "reserve the right to clarify" but I understand it's functionality given time constraints. Don't clarify in an utterly unreasonable way (my threshold is pretty high here).

T: Topicality is a stock issue, and as such I will vote on it if it's won. I don't particularly enjoy listening to T arguments, but who really does. I don't particularly love definitions (I.E. "substantial"), unless the original definitions are completely misrepresenting the words of the resolution/rule/etc. That being said, competing interpretations has been doing well in front of me recently so I would hardly call it unviable. Upholding your standards is pretty much the most important thing to do to win T in front of me. You can make your voter "NFA-LD rules" if you want, but there needs to be an articulated voter on T for me to vote on it. I default reasonability, but really I strongly prefer one or both debaters to give me a FW. I will evaluate T on whatever FW is given to me by the debaters. NOTE: My threshold for voting on T is lower than it was my first two years judging, if you happen to remember/have heard that I would not vote on Topicality.

Theory: Pretty much the same as my T paradigm. I'll listen to theoretical positions, just give me some clear standards if you want to win that position in front of me. I default drop the argument if you don't read a warrant for why I should drop the debater, but I believe fundamentally that theory comes first, so it doesn't need to be a great warrant. Clear in-round abuse stories tied to theory arguments, especially those focused on research burden and unfair ground have been successful in front of me in the past, but I don't perceive myself as being uniquely drawn to them. I don't mind Neg debaters running Disclosure Theory against Affs, but unless the Neg runs a CP or an Alt I don't think Affs running Disclosure Theory against Negs is a viable strategy in front of me if the Neg DOES run a CP or Alt then suddenly Disclosure is a viable aff position. (NOTE: this is for LD, for PF aff's can run disclosure theory, it is viable in that realm).

Disclosure in PF is a fine theory position to run in front of me, but I will not vote for it on principle alone. I DO generally think disclosure is a good norm that should be adopted into PF, but that being said, you need to have clear standards, voters and weighing on a theory argument to win. My desire to not intervene in a round far outweighs my desire to punish teams for not disclosing. A role of the ballot framing is also a good strategy in any context if you're going for theory and if you're defending against a position like this then having a counter framework is also a good idea.

I will vote on conceded RVI's but the threshold for voting on an RVI that's been effectively defended against is probably fairly high. "Don't vote for an RVI" is not enough defense. Explain to me literally any reason to not vote for the RVI.

CP: I don't have a strong personal predilection to voting on conditionality one way or the other, but I conceptually dislike conditional CP's a lot- that being said, it's not a strong enough dislike for it to matter unless someone in round forces my hand. "Condo Bad" arguments are viable in front of me but by no means will they always win. Perms of the CP need to be actually explained to me. Just hearing "both" won't be a winning position in front of me. I will evaluate the plan vs. CP debate in pretty much the same way that I evaluate the SQ vs. plan debate unless one side offers a different FW. I am okay with the Neg going for CP and SQ in the NR, but I feel like the strategy is risky given that you have to split your time between both positions.

K: I love critical arguments and I was a critical scholar professionally, but don't necessarily expect me to be read up on all of the literature (though I may surprise you). I'm okay with generic links to the AFF, but I definitely like to see good impact calculus if your argument is reliant on a generic link; I need one or the other to be strong for your K to have a chance in a round. I need to know why the impacts of the K outweigh or precede the impacts of the AFF. I prefer Alternatives that have some type of action, but am open to other types of Alts as well. I don't particularly love hearing alts that say we need to theoretically engage in some different type of discourse unless there's a clear plan for what "engaging in X discourse" looks like in the real world (which can include within the debate round at hand, but might have more). Particularly, I enjoy hearing alternatives that call for the debaters in the round to engage in discourse differently (I think this is the easiest type of Alt to defend). Even if the Alternative is to simply drop the AFF in-round, that is enough "real world" implementation of a theoretical Alt for me.

Clarification: K debate is not the absence of tech- you still need to demonstrate a link an impact even if those things take a different form or are about different things than they would be in a more traditional arg.

DA: Not much to say here. Give me a good DA story and if you are winning it by the end of the round then I'll probably vote on it. Definitely remember to do weighing between the DA and the AFF though because there's always a good chance that I won't vote on your DA if you can't prove it outweighs any unsuccessfully contested Advantages of the Aff. DA's with no weighing are only a little better than no DA at all.

Solvency: A terminal solvency deficit is usually enough of a reason for me to vote against the aff BUT I need this extended as a reason to vote. You can always say that it's try-or-die, tell me there's a risk of solvency and sure, I'll still grant you that begrudgingly (unless you've really lost the solvency debate). If you're getting offense somewhere else good for you, I'll still vote on that; so like, if your case falls but you have a turn on a CP or an RVI on T or something those are still paths to the ballot. This note is here because I've seen a few rounds where the aff just sort of says "they have at best a terminal no solvency argument" and like- that's enough for them. That's what neg needs at the minimum to win the round.

Chad Meadows (he/him)

chadwickmeadows@gmail.com

If you have interest in college debate, and would be interested in hearing about very expansive scholarship opportunities please contact me. Our program competes in two policy formats and travels to at least 4 tournaments a semester. Most of our nationally competitive students have close to zero cost of attendance because of debate specific financial support.

Debate Experience

College: I’ve been the head argument coach and/or Director of Debate for Western Kentucky University for a little over a decade. WKU primarily competes in NFA-LD, a shorter policy format. This season (2023) we are adding CEDA/NDT tournaments to our schedule.

High School: I’ve been an Assistant Coach, and primarily judge, for the Marist School in Atlanta, Georgia for several years. In this capacity I’ve judged at high school tournaments in both Policy Debate and Public Forum.

Argument Experience/Preferences

I feel comfortable evaluating the range of debates in modern policy debate (no plan affirmatives, policy, and kritik) though I am the most confident in policy rounds. My research interests tend toward more political science/international affairs/economics, though I’ve become well read in some critical areas in tandem with my students’ interests (anti-blackness/afropessimism in particular) in addition I have some cursory knowledge of the standard kritik arguments in debate, but no one would mistake me for a philosophy enthusiast. On the nuclear weapons topic, almost all of my research has been on the policy side.

I have few preferences with regard to content, but view some argumentative trends with skepticism: Counterplans that result in the plan (consult and many process counterplans), Agent counterplans, voting negative any procedural concern that isn’t topicality, reject the team counterplan theory that isn’t conditionality, some versions of politics DAs that rely on defining the process of fiat, arguments that rely on voting against the representations of the affirmative without voting against the result of the plan.

I feel very uncomfortable evaluating events that have happened outside of the debate round, especially in the CEDA/NDT community where I have limited knowledge of the context regarding community trends.

I have little experience evaluating debates with some strategies that would only be acceptable in a 2-person policy debate context - 2ac add-ons, 2nc counterplanning, 2ac intrinsicness tests on DA, etc. I’m not opposed to these strategies, and understand their strategic purpose, but I have limited exposure.

Decision Process

I tend to read more cards following the debate than most. That’s both because I’m curious, and I tend to find that debaters are informing their discussion given the evidence cited in the round, and I understand their arguments better having read the cards myself.

I give less credibility to arguments that appear unsupported by academic literature, even if the in round execution on those arguments is solid. I certainly support creativity and am open to a wide variety of arguments, but my natural disposition sides with excellent debate on arguments that are well represented in the topic literature.

To decide challenging debates I generally use two strategies: 1) write a decision for both sides and determine which reflects the in-round debating as opposed to my own intuition, and 2) list the relevant meta-issues in the round (realism vs liberal internationalism, debate is a game vs. debate should spill out, etc.) and list the supporting arguments each side highlighted for each argument and attempt to make sense of who debated the best on the issues that appear to matter most for resolving the decision.

I try to explain why I sided with the winner on each important issue, and go through each argument extended in the final rebuttal for the losing team and explain why I wasn’t persuaded by that argument.

Public Forum

Baseline expectations: introduce evidence using directly quoted sections of articles not paraphrasing, disclose arguments you plan to read in debates.

Argument preferences: no hard and fast rules, but I prefer debates that most closely resemble the academic and professional controversy posed by the topic. Debate about debate, while important in many contexts, is not the argument I'm most interested in adjudicating.

Style preferences: Argumentation not speaking style will make up the bulk of my decision making and feedback, my reflections on debate are informed by detailed note taking of the speeches, speeches should focus their time on clashing with their opponents' arguments.

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

incredibly lay judge, speak slowly, clearly (english skills are subpar won't lie)

no knowledge on theory or any prog arguments

have fun with him as a judge ~

Sully Mrkva

“There is a house. One enters it blind and comes out seeing. What is it?” --- Tell me the answer.

add me to the email chain: Manlybros11@gmail.com

Brentwood High '22 / VT '26: Debated for Four Years - Won TOC, Auto-Qualed to TOC 2x and Nats 1x. I'm now the assistant director for the Debate Drills Club Team and NSD PF camps.

TLDR: Tech>Truth that will vote on anything that is not _ist.

I love debate. Take a deep breath, don’t be aggressive, and have some fun dawgs - I invested thousands of hours into this activity and know how important it is to some people - I GET YOU - leave it all on the flow and don’t be a chungus.

|Sign Post | Extend Warrants | Collapse meaningfully | Weigh Comparatively | BE NICE|

_____________________________________________________________________________________

-General-

• It’s MY job to adapt to you - if there’s anything you need before round to help make it more accessible or have any questions - email me or ask me before round.

• Don’t be a jerk - Debate Rounds can get very heated - try to maintain your composure and “pretend to be sincere.” ALSO - if you are absolutely COOKING a team - don’t add fuel to the fire - treat a novice team with the same respect that you would give the #1 team ranked in the nation, if you don’t, you’re in for a low speaks win.

• Unless the tournament says otherwise, I will disclose and give my RFD.

• Feel free to postround (time permitting ofc). For newer debaters and anyone who wants help - ask me if there’s something better you could have done on argument x during the round to win my ballot - I will give my best critiques as possible to improve your skill into the future (I always loved judges who did this for me).

• Second Rebuttal must frontline all offense and weighing - otherwise it’s conceded. Offense YOU are going for in the back half must also be frontlined - i.e. if you are going for a contention with 3 pieces of defense and a turn on it - you must frontline all of that in one way or another for me to evaluate it in the back half. (during tech rounds I used to frontline entire case and then go vroom vroom on their case - I think this is very strategic and if you do it well - I’ll give a speaks boost)

• No Sticky Defense. Even if it is conceded, extend it.

-Substance-

• Extend Warrants. For offense you are going for - whether that be a turn, DA, case argument, etc. I need a warranted extension that isn’t some blippy 5 second extension - if it's FULLY conceded, my threshold for this is a bit lower.

• Summary -> FF mirror. Anything in FF has to be in summary. Case arguments, defense, offense, weighing all need to be explained and extended in summary for me to evaluate it at the end of the round. Exception to this rule is if a team reads new weighing in 2nd summary, you can respond to that in 1st FF. Structure of speeches can be different between summ and ff - just no different content. 2nd FF cheese will not work on me.

• Frontlining. I love when teams frontline entire case in 2nd rebuttal - that is, if they do it well, if you can’t reach the efficiency level and blip storm supreme through the first 1:30 of rebuttal, it’s not gonna bode well for you on the flow. More broadly, frontlines need to be directly interactive with the argument you are responding to, give me reasons why to break the clash, postdates, warrant comparison, etc - or it’s gonna make the debate wayyyyyyyyy closer than it needs to be. Lastly, cross-applying conceded frontlines from different parts of the flow to another in back-half speeches is perfectly fine, the flow is a toolbox, not a map.

• Rebuttal Responses. You can go as fast as you want, as long as there is a warrant that I can pinpoint and explain back to myself during my decision. Do not spam DA’s that are masked as turns that aren’t actually responsive to the link, you can give an all offense rebuttal - but make sure you are interacting with your opponent on the link level. Respond to impacts - one of weakest parts of current circuit tech debate is teams focusing too hard on link-level responses and flat out dropping their opps’ impact scenarios in even the most high-level rounds. Do this in rounds I judge you and adopt this in future ones - trust me, it’ll make a world of difference.

-Weighing-

Carded weighing is GASSSS.

• Make your weighing comparative. Just asserting that your argument is empirically proven or has a higher magnitude is the bare minimum and is the most basic way to grab a ballot. To be confident that you won mine, prove why your opponents don’t meet the weighing threshold, but you do - I.E your argument happened empirically, but their link was historically disproven. Most importantly, compare link-ins - just explaining why your argument link-ins to their impact doesn’t give you offense, it at best non-uniques their scenario - explain why you have a better link into their impact to generate round-winning weighing. META WEIGH - if two teams are giving different weighing mechanisms without any comparison, it’s gonna force me to intervene, prob over mag, visa versa, etc. makes the round ez for me to evaluate and by extension ez-ier for you to W.

• Frontline yours and Respond to theirs. Don’t shuffle deck chairs on the titanic. If your opponents respond to your weighing, you need to frontline it in the proceeding speech and extend that frontline or otherwise you won’t have access to that weighing. This goes both ways - respond to your opponents weighing, or theirs is conceded. A really good “weigh” to win my ballot is to handle weighing at the top of your speech - it’s the most important aspect of the flow and crystalizes the round for tech judges.

• Have Fun with it. Don’t be afraid to give strategic and smart link-ins, don’t stick to magnitude, probability, scope, etc. Link-ins and short circuits at both the impact and link level are by far the most effective forms of weighing. I like extinction outweighs or extinction comes first weighing - speaker boost incoming if you do this.

• Fake Weighing. Strength of link weighing, Clarity of impact, Clarity of link is BS and not actual weighing - just analysis of the level of ink on your case that’ll be obvious when I look down on my flow. This weighing isn’t convincing - don’t waste your time reading it.

-Theory / Prog-

• I’ll vote on theory - Default RVIS and reasonability. I didn’t read a single progressive argument in my debate career but had my fair share of rounds hitting Ks, theory, tricks, etc. So I know how to evaluate. BUTTTTT - if you are clearly reading theory to get an easy W against a new team expect your speaks tanked and if you are reading some friv stuff that is obviously just a 7-eleven quality shell I will have an extremely high bar for you throughout the round.

• I’ll vote on Ks. I can evaluate Pf level K debate and vote correctly. I’ll evaluate everything directly off the flow and be completely tabula rosa - which I believe is of utmost importance ESPECIALLY in prog/K rounds.

• I Like substance more. I’ve always been a substance guy - so don’t read prog just because you have a tech judge. If this is your topic strat, there is an actual violation, etc. RUN IT and I’m all ears.

-Speaks-

• Be Chill, Be fluent, easy to follow, and strategically smart - that’s my recipe for good speaks.

• Some of my favorite debaters are Sri Chilukuri, Anoosh Kumar, Anuraag Routray, and Max Wu - I vibe with these debaters’ style - this is meant to give you a gauge on what I like.

• Be assertive in cross - don’t let your opponents walk over you and don’t be afraid to call them out if they are ranting and giving a mini rebuttal.

-Fun Stuff-

If you made it all the way down here - thank you!

“don’t hate the player, hate the game” - ICE-T

tl;dr → flow????

sreekar.nagul@gmail.com and trinitypreppfdocs@gmail.com, put me on the chain plz and label the chain with the round, both teams and which side they are on

i did pf for trinity prep for 3 years on the nat circuit and now i go to berkeley. i was pretty mid at debate but i qualled to the toc my senior year so there is that. i won this tourney called peach state and did ight at some other nat circuits. if there is one thing you need to know about my paradigm, it's this. debate is a game, play to win

I hate intervention, I will do anything to avoid doing it unless told otherwise.

tech>everything, if it's warranted and has an impact, it can pick up my ballot. imo tho true arguments are easier to weigh and win

if you wanna spread send a doc, but I would highly prefer if I could understand what you are saying. if you spread past rebuttal, I will call clear twice and if I still can’t understand you I’m gonna stop flowing. i am notoriously not that good with speed but i will try my best. don't share google docs, send a pdf or a word doc, non-negotiable. all in all, speak fast but never sacrifice clarity for it. if I can't catch what you are saying, then it is not on my flow.

collapse by final, its strategic and boosts speaks

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

rebuttals responsive to actual warrants will be rewarded with speaks

frontline everything you wanna go for in 2nd rebuttal and any external offense from 1st ref(i.e. turns and disad's). if its conceded in 2nd ref, its conceded the same way something not frontlined in 1st summ would be conceded, aka terminal concession

conceded defense is sticky, but bar that defense is not sticky and turns have to be extended, implicated, and most importantly weighed in either team’s summary if you are going for them. turns don't have to be weighed when they are made.

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

you must explicitly extend any offense (with warrants) you want to go for in summary and ff, no new things in final and anything you say here has to be in summary (1st ff can respond to 2nd summ weighing, and 2nd ff can respond to 1st ff weighing tho)

cross is not binding, but if they make a concession, then bring it up in the next speech and keep extending it for it to matter, we can skip GCX for an extra minute of prep (instead of 3 min total for both teams it would be 4 min, and if the tourney starts with 4 min prep it would be 5 min)

idk how to evaluate cp’s and tricks so you prolly shouldn't run them (nsda rules is prolly terminal d), but things like fem and neocol framework I can (and I think are strategic). bringing up a new fw in summary is prolly abusive

pull up evidence fast, if not the opponents can have unlimited prep until you send. speech docs prolly resolve this. if you want me to call for cards, you need to ask me to do so explicitly and frequently by the end of the round. i think calling for cards is super interventionist because i think the debaters are the ones that should resolve clash not me. if your opps lie about ev but you never call them out, i wont intervene and/or dock them.

THEORY

if you run theory, use a shell, I default to competing interps and no RVI’s. yes, I think paraphrasing is bad, round reports are good, and disclosure is good. no, I won't hack for any unless you win the shell. the same extension stuff applies, but collapse. weigh the voters, if not, I will default safety > accessibility > resolvability > inclusivity > education > fairness. if no one is garnering offense on theory/unresolved clash on theory, then I will default substance, and if there is nothing on substance then I will presume.

I think friv theory is bad bc the short speech times in PF, however, I dislike intervening more than friv theory, so I will evaluate it, but I will err on the side of a good ‘friv theory bad’ shell or a reasonability claim.

for novices: if you choose to run theory and the other team clearly does not know what is going on, as long as you drop it and go for case debate I won't hit your speaks too hard, but if you prove that the other team is a capable opponent in your violation then I'm all for it.

for varsity: saying you don't know how to respond to the shell isn't enough, varsity debaters must know how to respond to varsity arguments (i.e. theory, kritiks, and other progressive arguments)

although I believe trigger warnings don't really do anything (see Association for Psychological Science and Harvard University), if an arg actually has triggering material that you have evidence to back then I am all for it. reading trigger warning theory as a way to not interact with arguments is a horrible practice that is super uneducational imo.

KRITIKS

I will never hack for a K and will evaluate it on the flow unless told otherwise. this doesn’t mean I won’t vote on a k, if it's won on the flow I will gladly vote for it but if it's not then I won’t. specific alts are great

for novices: idk if I should evaluate k’s in novice, but ig if you make a claim your opponent is extremely capable then maybe… I would err on the side of caution tho

EXTRAS

all in all, I think speaks are a matter of technical ability and strategy in the round, if you seem well versed in your arguments and make good decisions on the flow you will get good speaks. generally tho, ill just shamelessly steal what my coach said, “speaker points, are less about your speaking performance and more about your ability to present and explain compelling arguments, interact with the opposition, and provide meaningful analysis as to why you are necessarily more important. in short, content above style”

postround me as hard as you want, it's definitely educational, good for the activity, and incentivizes me to intervene as less as possible

I will presume neg if there is no offense, it is the aff’s job to prove to me they are better than the status quo. if it is a benefits vs. harms res, ill intervene ig or look for any semblance of offense smh.

if an argument is conceded, i will consider it true. my threshold for new responses/cross-apps/implications on conceded arguments is pretty low, but there is no harm in actually responding anyways. this being said, i know pf is structurally skewed towards to the second speaking team, but I will try my best to protect the first final.

RANDOM

if you make a crazy double entendre bar in any of your speeches your speaks gonna go crazy high.

all in all, I agree with like almost every flow judge, so just don't do anything stupid, abusive, or discriminative otherwise you will get L20's and as cliche as it is, hAVe fUn in whatever way you think fun is

if you didn’t understand any of this, I wholeheartedly agree with Jake Kaminski’s paradigm, there is nothing on there I don't fully agree with so read it if you want more info. my other favorite paradigms are John Nahas and Anish Iyyavoo. if you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask.

for novices: If this is your 1st or 2nd tournament, you will do great! Focus on responding to all of your opponents arguments, comparing why your arguments are better, and explaining all of the parts of your arguments very clearly in every speech. Most of all, have confidence, you are going up against first year debaters only, you can win if you believe you can win. "We All Put Our Pants On the Same Way"

props if you got this far in my paradigm, I used to stalk paradigms all day to learn how judges would think so I could tweak my game, lemme know and I’ll boost your speaks

2024 Note:::: I broke my wrist and im not 100% yet so i CANNOT type consistently for 4 minutes straight. GO SLOWER for me so i can get everything

I did 4 years of PF at Cypress Bay in Weston, Florida (2016-2020). I'm currently a senior at duke.

My paradigm is just random notes and bullets because I'm a pretty boring and receptive judge. Generally flow, emphasis on weighing, implicating, offense. I'll evaluate anything, just explain it. Feel free to ask me anything before the round.

-Extend offense pls, I wont do it for you

-Weigh like the W depends on it, because it does. Respond to your opps weighing if you're cool.

-Cross is for you, does not impact I evaluate a round (unless it comes up in speech ofc)

-Don't read responses you won't implicate/explain/understand, makes the whole debate better

-please don’t shake my hand. I'm sick rn

-3 min summary is cool and all but collapse

-Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh. Which weigh? Dat weigh.

-Please have fun. Like actual fun and not like fun in pursuit of a W.

-I normally vote for the best singular piece of offense in the round. (collapse please)

-not paradigmatically/morally against them at all, but reading a K (or theory) in front of me is probably not the best idea unless you REALLY take the time to explain everything. I’m out of practice and never totally learned it all to begin with

• If you have any other questions feel free to email me matthewnorman2002@gmail.com or ask me before the round. Hated my decision? send all complaints to sepul.fabiola@gmail.com

At the end of the day, debate is up to the debaters. Do what you enjoy/are best at and I'll do my best to be receptive and evaluate it all fairly.

TLDR:

Wired: Collapse, weigh, signpost, tom brady slander, being nice, talking slow

Tired: being mean, friv theory, partial quads (i dont know what partial quads are), tom brady, being mean.

******If both sides agree to settle the debate with a mutually agreed upon test/competition of strategy or skill, I will not intervene. Only valid if both teams are definitely breaking or definitely not.

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 4/26/24

Top level thoughts

I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.

I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.

I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)

I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.

I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.

Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.

General thoughts on arguments

Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T.

Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.

Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.

Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)

Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.

If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.

Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms

Hey, I'm Hassan and I debated for seven years

read whatever u want, just make sure you explain it well, I won't fill in gaps for you

you can curse if you want, just don’t be disrespectful or rude

any form of racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism/phia will result in an L 25 and will be reported to tab

I don't care about speed, just be clear pls

always send docs, add hpalan330@gmail.com to the chain

Despite what many people think and say, I'd prefer it if you read theory in front of me. Probably the most fun rounds I've judged have been theory rounds. Read whatever shells you want, if you need some ideas check the Google Docs link at the bottom. I'd probably slow down just a little on the standards and paradigm issues, it'll make it easier for me to flow :)

That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy a good substance round, they've just become less interesting for me the more I've judged. But feel free to read whatever you want.

Quick prefs:

Policy - 1

Theory - 2

K - 3

phil - 3/4

Tricks - 5/S

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FMlFid8Emdv5EV4xl1ZzJg_EzBmdmzbty4XqcKeinEI/edit?usp=sharing

I vote off the flow. I don't mind debate jargon, but I may ask you to clarify some terms. Don't spread or talk too fast (200 wpm is the max where I can still catch everything you say). I will ask you to slow down if I'm missing arguments. I may ask you after the round for cards and evidence, so don't run out of the room until I've let you go. Be respectful in cross. I will not tolerate Ad Hominem attacks (attacks against your opponent and not their argument). I do not like theory arguments that are off topic and trying to be "clever" to win on technicalities. I will likely not vote on it, especially if you are abusing it.

LD: I have a background as a philosophy professor. Please make your value and value criterion clear and carry them throughout the round. Don't turn this into a 1 person policy round. I prefer more traditional LD arguments. If you are going to try to tell me that mass extinction is good, for example, it better have some hard evidence and strong logic backing it up.

PF: Make sure your arguments all make logical sense. I probably will not vote on Kritiks or weird theory. I prefer you have evidence to back up your claims but it is not always needed for logical arguments. Please present me with clear impacts and carry them throughout the round.

Feel free to ask me questions after round (if this is a tournament where judges disclose), but know that I have already submitted my ballot so please don't try to convince me why my decision was wrong. If you want to set up an email chain, my email is josephmpergola@gmail.com

Put me on the email chain: drewpeterson2002@gmail.com

For some background, I have previously competed for 3 years on the national circuit, been coaching / judging for 4 years nationally and also served as the the Tournament Chair for the Florida Blue Key Speech & Debate Tournament.

I strongly prefer hearing smart arguments over a large quantity of them.

My threshold for warranting and explanation is likely much higher than you think. Warrant is severely lacking in PF. In order for me to vote on argument, all parts must be clearly extended and explained in the later speeches.

Do not just do impact calc just for the sake of doing it. Impact calc is not nearly as relevant / important to most of the decisions I make as it can be. Make your analysis truly comparative.

However, all of my rules and preferences are negotiable. Debate is up to the debaters. Go for whatever type of argument you want, but stick to what you do best. That includes theory and kritiks.

My name is Jordan Press. I debated for 4 years at Cypress Bay High School, graduating in 2016. I was very active as a debater/judge/coach from 2012-2019. I now work at NSU University School as an educator.

jordan.press1998@gmail.com for email chains – also feel free to email questions

The purpose of an email chain is to speed up evidence exchange, not to have the judge read off your doc during your speeches while you go incomprehensibly fast. I cap out at around 250 WPM, but would prefer you stay around the 200 WPM range. I refuse to flow off your doc. If I can’t hear it or comprehend it, then I won’t flow it, and I will be even more disappointed if it feels like you are spreading a less experienced team out of the round. Prioritize being efficient over being quick.

Back half strategy: I strongly prefer rounds where you make it clear to me what voting for you does. What does the Aff/Neg world look like and why is your world better? I want a clear, concise, cohesive, and crystalized narrative. Additionally, extensions require context and warranting that evolves around the events occurring in the round. The best rounds are the ones where debaters shape their extensions and warrants around the clash happening in the round instead of reading off a pre-written extension file. If you just tell me to “extend Smith” with no context, I probably won’t extend it on my flow. If you are going to read blippy card extensions in Summary/FF I am not the judge for you. Moreover, Depth > Breadth. I am much more likely to vote for a team extending 1 cleanly explained, weighed and fleshed out argument than a team extending 3-4 arguments that they are winning but are not explained in-depth in the back half of the round.

You should weigh early and often – it helps develop your narrative and helps me know what issues to look to first when filling out my ballot.

On Speaker Points – teams who do this stuff ^^ well will get higher speaks.

My threshold for accepting responses to unwarranted garbage is really low. This applies to weighing, link chains, reading new offense or responses super late in the round, and especially impact chains. If you don’t tell me WHY and HOW we are getting from point A to point B and point B to point C and point C to point D in your impact chain I will be extremely unlikely to vote off that impact chain. EVERYTHING in the chain NEEDS TO BE WARRANTED AND HAVE ANALYSIS (Yes, that means I want you to explain why a nuclear war would cause extinction instead of just asserting that it does). I find this issue to be especially apparent in constructive in modern PF.

I am generally tech over truth, but there is a threshold for offensive arguments. I will vote off ridiculous (in real world context) arguments if they are properly warranted, and easily not vote off things that are universal truths if they are not properly warranted.

Progressive Arguments: I am still learning. I am not the best judge to read Kritiks/Theory in front of, but I will do my best to evaluate the arguments. You may need to dumb them down for me or overexplain. I believe there are valid reasons for reading Ks and Theory in PF, and I also believe there are valid reasons for why students should not be reading Ks and Theory in PF. I am open to both sides of that conversation and think that discussions about if those arguments belong in PF can be made in the round and make for interesting debates. I would consider myself a better judge for substance rounds than for K/Theory rounds, but I am more than willing to listen to a good K/Theory debate. At the end of the day, yes it is your job to adapt to me, but I also want you to be comfortable and debate in a style that you enjoy.

On Disclosure specifically, I am genuinely indifferent. I think there are valid reasons for why disclosure is both good and bad for PF and I am happy to listen to a good in-round discussion on that topic.

Feel free to post-round me or ask questions – I want to help you learn and grow- just don’t be rude or belittling towards me and especially not towards your opponents. I am an adult; I can just leave if the conversation becomes unproductive. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, but even more importantly it is an educational one. Be good humans, don’t let your drive to win rounds cloud your judgement.

Most importantly have fun and good luck! If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round begins.

I am a lay judge. I judged at UPenn last year. Limit use of debate jargon and speak slowly and clearly. Make sure you extend your arguments into summary and have comprehensive weighing. Please do not spread, as I am unable to flow VERY fast speaking. I should be able to flow a warrant-link-impact for each contention. I vote on extended arguments through summary and FF, and good comparative weighing. I don't have experience in debate, but do my best to remove all personal biases on the topic. Please don't run Ks or Theory, as I can't evaluate them. Good luck!

Email:Benjaminredler@gmail.com

Ask for preferences before round starts

My name is Maria and I debated at NSU (‘23) for about 4 years. I am currently a freshman at Georgetown University and coach for NSU.

During my career I won NSDA Nationals, finaled at Glenbrooks, UK, TOC Digital, Ivy Street RR, and qualled to the TOC twice (octas senior year).

Add me to the email chain: mjr343@georgetown.edu and also add uschoolpf@gmail.com

TL;DR: Tech>truth, speed is fine, read any argument you want (not offensive).

General:

-I’ll vote on any argument that is won on the flow as long as it's not offensive/problematic.

-Any speed is fine, just send a doc if you plan on going extremely fast. If I miss something it's on you.

-Tell me where you’re starting — you don’t need to give me a three minute roadmap tho, just signpost.

-PLEASEEE pre flow before.

-Please give/extend actual warrants. 30 blippy/paraphrased responses will get you nowhere. Give me an actual warrant that interacts with the argument you’re responding to.

-Second rebuttal needs to frontline all offense and defense for the arguments you are going for. Also try to collapse in second rebuttal — poorly attempting to frontline four contentions results in unnecessarily messy debates 99% of the time. If done correctly this can def be good tho.

-WEIGH!!! This is true for EVERY piece of offense you are going for. I am extremely unlikely to vote on a turn with zero weighing. Your weighing should also be comparative. No new weighing in final unless you’re responding to new analysis that was done in second summary. All weighing HAS to be in summary for me to evaluate it.

-Read framing if you know how to properly do so. Recently every team seems to think that reading 2 minutes of structural violence/extinction framing in constructive will win you the debate. Although I ran A LOT of structural violence arguments during my debate career and am inclined to vote on them, I think that debates get unnecessarily messy when teams stop actually debating and just go for unwarranted pre-fiat arguments.

-Everything in final needs to be in summary — these speeches should practically mirror each other.

-Defense is not sticky.

-Don’t be rude.

-I’ll disclose my decision at the end of the round and will give as much feedback as possible. Post-rounding is fine.

-If there's zero offense I'll presume neg unless told otherwise.

More Specific Weighing Stuff:

-Comparative weighing. Tell me why I should prefer your mechanisms over theirs.

-SV and extinction debates should start muchhhhh earlier than summary. I’m unlikely to view any “prefer SV/extinction” analysis as “weighing” since these are framing arguments that should be in constructive or rebuttal.

-I love link-ins and think they are a really effective way to win many debates, especially because teams won’t actually respond to the warrants 90% of the time. However, either a) have evidence for claims like “melting ice caps lead to pandemics which means we link-in” or b) have really good warranting if link-ins are uncarded. Also actually weigh the link-ins. If you access their impact too tell me why is your internal link better.

-Magnitude, time frame, probability > strength of link, clarity of impact, urgency, etc. Please do REAL weighing.

Progressive Debate:

-I’ll vote on theory — Disclosure is good/paraphrasing is bad/round reports are good/open source disclosure is good. I ran disclosure theory countless times when I debated so I am EXTREMELY likely to vote on it. Same with paraphrasing but to a lesser extent. But actually win the debate if you read theory—I won’t automatically vote for you if you read disclosure. I highly dislike friv theory (disclose rebuttal ev, bring stuffed animals to rounds, robot theory, etc.) Tell me what I should default to (reasonability/RVIs, counterinterps.)

-Don’t read tricks. Ngl I have zero clue what these are.

-Kritiks — I've read a few Ks before (femIR, borders, women in debate) and have a somewhat basic understanding of kritiks like homonationalism, transnational feminism, etc. However, most of these rounds were so complicated and messy. Run a K at your own risk, I'll evaluate them to the best of my ability. Pleaseeeee explain them well and slow it down.

-Trigger warnings — I really don’t think these are necessary like 99% of the time. I hate when teams read TW theory just because they don’t know how to respond to gendered violence arguments. When reading identity Ks and such (using personal experiences) these might be needed but again I don’t think TWs are the way to go IN DEBATE. I especially hate TWs that have opt out forms.

**ALL TOURNAMENTS: I learned of the topic the morning of the tournament. PLEASE assume I know nothing. Except Sunvite 2024, half my masters degree was section 230 so I know a decent bit.***

Background:

Competed in Public Forum @ Cypress Bay HS (2013-2017)

BA in Political Science @ University of Central Florida (2017-2021)

MA in Bioethics, Tech Ethics and Science Policy @ Duke University (2021-2022)

PF (If you have me for another event go lay) Paradigm

- Look, I know NSU is a tech school and all, but they hire me to coach lay debate i havent cut a card in maybe 6 years (but like ive been around the circuit so i sometimes know what's going on) . if you're spreading or speaking too fast i probably wont catch a lot of it and will probably look confused

- if possible, number your responses so i know if I missed anything

- Set up email chains/preflow during tech check. I am a big believer in sending case docs to make it easier for everyone but I won't force yall to do so. You'll get a bump in speaks if you do. sharansawlani@gmail.com and uschoolpf@gmail.com

- Please don’t shake my hand.

- You can ask to look at ev during your partner or opponent's speech/cross. Idk why or when people started considering this as "stealing prep time".

- Quality of voters> Quantity of voters.

- Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh. Which weigh? Dat weigh.

- Keep the round lighthearted. I think debaters are way too angry now and some humor would be appreciated. Jokes and puns are highly encouraged.

- Not a fan of super squirrelly arguments or theory (the next 2 bullets might answer your next questions). Idk too much about K's and im not the best at evaluating them, but if that's what you wanna read just make sure you explain it well. If I'm confused at the end of the debate I promise you won't be happy with my decision.

- READ and SEND cut cards. paraphrasing is whack. i wont penalize you for it but if the other team reads theory or tells me to evaluate paraphrased evidence as analytics and not real evidence, and you dont respond, it's going to be a really uphill battle.

- Disclosure in PF is a good thing. Same thing as paraphrasing; If someone discloses and either a) you do not and they read disclosure theory OR b) you LIE about what you've disclosed, I consider this a TKO. This means if disclosure theory is read in the round (reasonably) and it is conceded then it is basically over.

- Your final focus should be telling me what to write on my ballot. If i don’t have to spend time thinking about how im voting after the round, you and i will both be happy (half of you at least).

- Apparently this needs to be clarified now but regardless of speaking order, in the rare situation where there is no offense on either side at the end of the round I will presume neg.

If you have any other questions feel free to email me sharansawlani@gmail.com or ask me before the round provided your opponents are present as well. Hated my decision? send all complaints to sophialam@uchicago.edu and hold nothing back.

TLDR:

Bold: Collapse, weigh, signpost, don’t make me think, galaxy hoodie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai3UfW-dFi8&ab_channel=HeXyaCe

Fold: being mean, friv theory, no email chain/disclosure, partial quads lmao.

kschwab@pinescharter.net

I've been coaching and teaching Debate (as well as the AICE courses Global Perspectives & Thinking Skills) for the past 14 years.

For LD/PF/Policy

Even though I have experience on the circuit and enjoy different types of cases, I am not a buyer of the belief that the technical should rule because sometimes format is not as important as content & understanding what you are running. I would consider myself a truth over tech although it will come to the clash provided not my own opinion on the truth. I will stick to the flow unless someone gives me a good reason to vote for them that is true and benefits the debate/educational event. I believe that kritiks, theory, LARP, etc... are all beneficial to learning and play into strategy, so I will vote in favor of anything IF you are able to prove the link is logically clear and strong enough in regards to what your opponent says is the reason for why I should not accept.

I do NOT have a preference for framework/cases - I've heard almost every kind by now and all types have won and lost my vote. Extinction impacts bore me without link work done, so I'd appreciate you at least have some linked harm impacts before extinction level even if final impact is extinction.

I can handle speed (even spreading) pretty well by now - if there is an issue with understanding or hearing I will say "clear" and will also check cards at the end for anything I missed...but please keep in mind that there are certain aspects in a construction that maintains well with speed and other areas that don't (i.e. - if you need me to understand how a philosophy or theory applies then allow me to absorb each part before rushing to the next because those are building block arguments, so missing one part can make the whole thing fall).

Congress:

This is a role playing event - I would like you to act better than our current congress :) I'm big on arguments... not on summation evidence (the kind that is just a quote that someone said the same thing as your claim). I like you to talk to us...be charming or intelligent or both if you really want my top scores. I love this event because when it's good it's so good. Have fun, be smart, and don't leave the chamber during session unless an emergency - there are plenty of breaks and I appreciate when students that don't take extra ones.

Hello, I am a Sophomore at Carleton College. I competed in PF on both the local (4 years) and national circuit (2 years).

Things to know about me:

I am a flow judge.

Make my life easy and do extensions starting in summary.

Make my life even easier and weigh.

If you run an argument that is "progressive" i.e. off case you must go for it and it must be the main thing in the round for your teams. This includes but not limited to Ks, theories, and anything resembling either version. To be clear, I am okay with these types of arguments.

Cross ex can do a lot for you if you use it correctly. That being said, anything you say in cross that you care about bring up in the next speech.

I will call for cards if they are bad or sound to good to be true. I.e. have good evidence ethics.

The more absurd the argument the more absurd the response to it can be.

I start my speaker points at 28 and move up and down from there.

Watch my reactions I have no poker face.

Email: gabewseidman@gmail.com

I am a lay Judge, my primary focus is on creating a positive educational experience for all participants. Here is an outline of my expected criteria while evaluating your argument.

I approach each debate with a commitment to fairness and an open mind. I will listen alternatively to both teams, assess the arguments, and avoid any personal biases.

I value clear and effective communication. Debaters are encouraged to articulate their point in a manner that is easy to understand.

I appreciate participants to actively engage with the topic and respond thoughtfully to their opponents. The ability to address counter arguments and engage in meaningful dialogue is crucial.

Students should support their arguments with credible and let relevant evidence. I will assess the quality and appropriateness of the evidence presented.

Effective time management is a valuable skill. Please keep your own time.

Respectful conduct is essential in debate. I expect all participants to adhere to proper etiquette and maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate.

My decision will be based on holistic assessment of the debate, considering the strength of arguments, evidence, rebuttals, clarity, engagement, and overall persuasive skills.

Most importantly, make sure you have lots of FUN!

Parent judge, please go at a conversational speed. Appreciate clarity and conciseness. Speeches and crossfire are both important. Have fun and enjoy the round

This is my first year judging PF. This means that you must do your job to adapt to me as a judge, but at the same time I will do my best to follow what you say and take notes.

Please speak slowly, and explain everything that you are saying very clearly. Do not skip any steps in your logical chains - things that are intuitive to you might not seem that way to me. If you see me lift up my pen or not write anything for a while, it means you are going too fast for me. Slow down and speak at an understandable pace.

I will do my best to judge the round fairly as long as you do your best to convince me on why you should win. Please speak in a conversational tone - do not yell - and be as persuasive in round as you can. Most importantly, have fun.

Experience: High school ELA teacher and assistant debate coach (2nd year) - LD/PF/SC

Education: B.A. History, English Minor. Assume that I have prior knowledge on content; I will ask for clarification if I do not. I enjoy connections you make to your learning in history/gov/econ classes.

- If you are reading this, tell me! I appreciate when students take time to read paradigms.

- If I look stoic or disgruntled, it's only my poker face. I am enjoying the round, and I will break character on occasion if something that I find funny/odd is said... : )

Debate (Judge/Coach)

General: I flow on paper and leave detailed comments on the ballot based on my flows. Anything I don't catch on the flow is on you, so slow down and ID anything you want to make sure I get. I also take time to think through decisions, which is why I do not disclose verbally (except on the very rare occasion that I do/must).

• The stronger argument is the one which presents a clear framework, supports it logically through an objective criterion, and adequately addresses the opponent's position. The best arguments may use a combination of philosophy and real-world/evidential application. Contentions should always be numbered, and voters with weighing should be done at the end.
• Some rounds can get very technical. I don't love when rounds devolve into aggressive spreading and theory wars, but I understand that is part of the sport. If it's after breaks, send me your case. The most "spreading" I follow/appreciate should sound like an excited friend telling a story; you don't have to be the fastest reader in the world.

CASES: I will evaluate all cases but do prefer traditional discussion of topic and impacts. However (LD), I am comfortable with phil (if you explain slowly and clearly), "soft-left" Ks and other common Ks (such as: cap, set col, anthropocentrism), CPs, and disads. No issues if you run those. Anything beyond that you want to run that's "progressive" I will struggle to adjudicate effectively. Running theory when merited is legitimate, but do it respectfully and help me significantly on ROB/ROJ to vote in those rounds, as I have a hard time evaluating. I do want to learn, so please adjust or ease me into any heavy progressive stuff pre- or post-round so that I can improve judging it in the future.

Type: Policymaker, but flexible; I judge trad rounds in a techy fashion / I judge tech rounds in a lay fashion (due to my current abilities and experience). "Flay" sounds demeaning to me for some reason, so I wouldn't label myself that, but it is what it is.

Likes: Unusual frameworks and contentions ("variety is the spice of life"); clear weighing; analyzing your or the opponent's evidence (i.e., that you actually know the cards beyond the tagline or stats and can explain its relevance in-round); good clash (not talking past or beyond opponent); consistent extensions; clean rounds.

Dislikes: Running cases you are clearly unfamiliar with; saying "turn X" when it is not evidently a turn; relying too much on a single "trump card" without contextualizing it in-round; not using the full allotted time or going over time (I will not count anything you attempt to say after time); "giving up" when you feel outclassed (and its inverse: steamrolling less-prepared opponents).

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

Speech (Judge if necessary)

All categories: Presentation is key. Even the best prepared speeches will not resonate with the audience if the delivery is lacking. I will be looking for PVLEGS and a confident demeanor. Follow the rhetorical triangle and incorporate ethos, pathos, and logos as necessary for your purpose. At the same time, your speech should be equally developed, with an organization, vocabulary, and evidence appropriate to your event.

Hey everyone!

I'm a parent ("lay") judge based in Tennessee.

I would prefer if all competitors within the round kept their own time both in speeches and prep time.

Good luck to all!

I am a parent of a debate student. Please speak slowly, clearly and be respectful toward your opponent. Presentation and delivery of your argument is important to me.

I am a parent judge. Please go slower and use comprehensible language. Please email your case documents to venkat.uma@gmail.com so that I can follow along better.

I am a lay judge. I try to vote off the flow, but I am not well versed in technical or meta-theory debate (I also just don't respect that game). Please avoid debate jargon. If I don't understand what you are saying, it is harder for me to vote on it. Don't spread or talk too fast (200 wpm is the max where I can still catch everything you say). Be respectful in cross. I will not tolerate Ad Hominem attacks (attacks against your opponent and not their argument). I do not like theory arguments that are off topic and trying to be "clever" to win on technicalities. I will likely not vote on it, especially if you are abusing it.

LD: Please make your value and value criterion clear and carry them throughout the round. I prefer more traditional LD arguments. If you are going to try to tell me that mass extinction is good, for example, it better have some hard evidence and strong logic backing it up.

PF: Make sure your arguments all make logical sense. I probably will not vote on kritiks or weird theory. I prefer you have evidence to back up your claims, but it is not always needed for logical arguments. I want you to sign my ballot for me. If I am left with a confusing round and have to infer things for myself, it will likely not go in your favor. Please present me with clear impacts and carry them throughout the round.

tl;dr: your friendly neighborhood parent judge.

long version:

1. most importantly, be nice, polite, and respectful
2. use good evidence, bad evidence is bad
3. i don't know debate jargon
4. if you talk fast, i will turn off my ears (like a 850+ word case and card dumping in rebuttal, this won't win you the round!!!)
5. be persuasive but don't lie
6. i will not time you, but if you blatantly go over prep/speech time, i most likely won't care, so time your opponents!!!
7. cross will influence my decision, keep this in mind
8. if you want to win, tell me why your arguments matter more then your opponents, and make this clear

I am a parent lay judge and have judged a several both speech and debate rounds.

Please speak slowly and clearly. Clearly express your side and argument and tell me which side of the debate (pro, con) you are going to talk about in a speech. Be polite and respectful to judges and your opponents, and display good sportsmanship.

Hello! I am a parent who is new to judging so please don't talk too fast and please do not use technical lingo. I will not give oral comments. Have fun!

Hello, I am a parent judge.

I want clear thought out link chains that are well warranted. I want to see warrants that are carried throughout the debate.

Debaters should be respectful and courteous.

I will not vote on theory or k’s.