I have learned the most in debate from asking judges dozens of questions about things I didn't understand in their paradigm. If you have any questions, feel free to ask!

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

Henry Anastasi (He/him/his)

Currently, a Senior at J. R. Masterman HS and have debated since freshman year under Masterman AW, AE, and most notably two different Masterman ACs

TLDR-I'm Tech I can judge you do what you want, I appreciate speech docs with cards greatly (not Google docs)

Immediate warning-any and all teams I will not vote for you if you´re hateful in any way. Any rhetoric that is Sexist, Racist, Homophobic, Transphobic, ect will lose you my ballot.

Debate is fun keep it fun. If you are rude to a team because you think you're better than them I will tank ur speaks even if I vote you up. You are not god, you are a teenager in a suit, I've seen too much of this recently.

General

-Go as fast as u want, I would like a speech doc over 1000 words, I think you will generally benefit from slower back half speeches

-tech>truth but that doesn't mean saying 'the sky is red' has as much legitimacy as 'the sky is blue'

-Defense isn't sticky it is 2023 (I lowkey don't even know what defense is sticky means)

-signposting good

-my partner and I do a lot of 'you didn't extend this properly' claims when we are losing rounds but I don't actually think it's that valuable. If your link into extinction isn't contested I don't need all the warranting behind it. TLDR, good extensions are valuable but I am not that stingy.

- Most rounds are won on the offensive layer, if you are torn on whether you should extend bad defense or read more weighing, read weighing.

-In that same realm, I will almost always vote for the argument that outweighs if some semblance of a link is won unless claims are read that I should prefer probability or prefer a less mitigated link

-Probability is a function of winning your case, and goes in tandem with defense

-Probability weighing is not an excuse to read new defense. It's so funny how far people can stretch probability analysis in some rounds. I think other weighing is preferable anyway because weighing should presume both arguments are won and probability is a facet of how won your link is.

-Early weighing is awesome and meta weighing is awesome. I think everyone is getting the point

-I think it's more interesting when things don't just impact out to extinction. I don't mind you doing that cuz sometimes it is just the best strategy (I read extinction constantly) , but it is so much more interesting to be able to do impact-weighing

Theory

-I like theory, Open-source disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, and round reports are good. I think content warnings are important for safety. I won't hack for any of this issues, your fighting an uphill battle responding to them but obviously I'll vote on the flow

-Drop the debater and other paradigm issues aren't a given so you need to make those arguments, you absolutely can lose a round where you are ahead on the theory level but don't extend dtd

-The current state of RVIs is bad. 50% of people think RVI's are any argument that you can win the round off of when responding to theory and the other 50% actually know what they are ????. Say no offense garnered if that's what you mean, say no RVIs if that's what you mean.

Ks

-If your K is serious take yourself seriously, if it's not then don't pretend like it is. I don't care what a random dude from 100 years ago thinks I care what argument you extrapolate from them.

-i'm good w non-topical, set col, IR, securitization, and anything that's considered common in pf.

-real alt pls not "reject the aff" THATS LITERALLY WHAT THE NEG ALREADY IS

Speaks

-Pitch me a real reason u deserve 30 speaks and I'll give you 30. It can be personal, if there's someone you want to outspeak you gotta spill the drama

-1+ speaks if you don't have a coach, 25 speaks if you lie about it

-Speaks will generally be good dw abt it

Fun Stuff

-An authentic Philly-related line in a debate round will get you high speaks. This doesn't mean you have to be from Philly but it also doesn't mean Google Philadelphia and use the first thing you see.

-If both teams agree to read cases from a dif topic I will give everyone 30s regardless

Misc

-I'll presume for the squo unless other claims are made

For email chains, please use kevin@civis.org

Debate background: I debated both LD and policy in high school and both CEDA and NDT in college. I also coached high school debate while in college and coached college debate while in graduate school. I have also directed several tournaments of a public forum nature for embassies in Washington, DC. I now coach and judge for my daughter's high school public forum team, so I have probably done at least some research and thinking about the topic. In my day job I design and publish historical board games.

My ballot is either an endorsement or rejection of the affirmative based on its (a) anticipated outcomes and (b) philosophical underpinnings. If the affirmative is not (reasonably) topical, then I lack jurisdiction to evaluate it and must vote negative.

I have a very strong preference for the probability of impacts over the magnitude of impacts. This is not to say I dislike big impacts, but you need a good link story to access those impacts. I am willing to assign zero risk to a disad if the links are just not there. I also find affirmative solvency to often be lacking - with the proper analytical and evidentiary presses, I am very willing to vote negative on "zero solvency."

I am very fond of counterplans but find that I lean affirmative on most theoretical issues. I find "counterplan solves better" a very compelling argument and can be in itself the net benefit.

As I noted above, the philosophical underpinnings of the plan are also an important consideration. An on-point criticism that engages with the plan can be very compelling to me. I am less interested in some kind of magical "alternative" that wishes away all the cares in the world.

Assistant PF Coach at Delbarton

she/her

im a flow judge. Tech > truth

Northeastern '26 + apda

Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart '22

Email Chains:
Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by the end of constructive. If your case is paraphrased, also send the case rhetoric. I cannot accept locked google docs; please send all text in the email chain.
Additionally, it would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.
The subject of the email should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order)
.
Please add 1) greenwavedebate@delbarton.org 2) brookekb1@gmail.comto the email chain.

pls strike me if u dont cut cards

i dont flow cross, it doesnt rly play a role in my decision

Arguments I would not feel comfortable judging: do not mention SA in round, any explicit gendered violence, explicit mental health depictions

Some general things:

Trigger Warnings MUST be read for any argument that could be triggering to anyone in the round- how to do so:

- if you believe an argument could be triggering, default to reading a warning before the speech begins

- if this the content within the speech is explicit, anonymous opt-outs should be sent to everyone in the room via an anonymous google form that can be as simple as an "opt in" vs "opt out" question. this can be easily sent via the google chain

- i am extremely receptive to trigger warning theory ie why a team should have read a trigger warning with a specific argument they are reading in the round

Extensions are VERY VERY important to me. The summary and final focus speeches should both have the extension of the links, warrants, and impacts of all offense you are going for. THIS INCLUDES TURNS.

Summary and Final Focus should mirror each other aka extending same args, no new ink on the flow after summary, all that

If someone does not extend every part of their argument (link, warrant, or impact) CALL THEM OUT and I will not vote on the argument

prog args

i like prog (ks + theory)... dont read on novs pls

I ran cut card/paraphrasing and disclosure theory in high school so I am definitely willing to vote on these arguments

Every part of theory shells must be extended in each speech to win the shell

General

Speech times are set

Signpost or I will not flow

Overviews are appreciated

IMPACT CALC PLEASE or you will not like the consequences

Policy:

tech>truth

Generally Tabula Rasa

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

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

Speed is fine but Slow Down on voters and analytics

Little to no topic familiarity

LD:

I think this event exists somewhere in between pofo and policy

So I will still flow without pre-conceptions but I really don't appreciate how it has basically become 1-person policy at the national level.

Please have a well explained value and criteria and contextualize that throughout the debate.

POFO:

truth>tech

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

Parli:

NPDA background

Speaks:

30: No

29: Top speaker of the day

28: I got you

27: I didn't get you

26: Words were spoken?

25: No, but different

im a parent/lay judge

if u present theory u will receive a big discount

not good with speed

make sure to time yourself

summary final focus important

if there are any other questions, ask me in round

Hey y'all! I'm Sunay. I'm a Novice Director at Bronx Science, and this is my third year doing PF. You can consider me a flow judge: I'm very generous with speaker points, so 28.5 for an average speaker.

I flow and am tech > truth. When judging, I'll vote for the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Email for evidence sharing and/or any questions: chawlas@bxscience.edu

General preferences:

- Frontline in second rebuttal (at a minimum, turns and terminal defense)

- Collapse (go for one contention in the back half)

- Extend the argument you are collapsing on (with warrants! Card names are not required)

- WEIGH starting in summary (please do comparative weighing. For meta weighing, it needs to be interactive and warranted instead of just saying "prefer probability over magnitude")

- Defense is not sticky (extend your defense if you want it to be evaluated)

- No new arguments after 1st summary (this includes new warrants. Backlines in 2nd summary & new weighing in 1st FF are both fine)

- Implications are important! (what does a response/frontline mean for the argument?)

- Signpost (tell me where you are on the flow. I don't need off-time roadmaps as long as you tell me where to start and signpost as you go)

- Warrant everything! (warranted analytic > card with no warrant)

Other in-round stuff:

- Please cut your cards

- Ev exchange should not take more than 2 mins. If you plan on calling for a lot of cards, just call for a speech doc.

- I won't pay much attention during cross, but cross is binding and anything said in cross must be brought up in a speech if you want it to be evaluated.

- Spread at your own risk. Some speed is fine as long as it's comprehensible, but if you go policy-fast I'll prob miss stuff.

- If you go overtime, you can finish your sentence but I'll stop flowing after approx 10 seconds.

Progressive arguments:

I'm not too comfortable with theory and/or Ks. Don't expect me to understand super niche prog arguments.

Speaker point boosts:

- Make a Drake reference +0.5

- If you are a soccer fan:

- Tell me your favorite national team and football club: +/-0.3 (goes up/down depending on how much I like them)

- Guess my favorite league: +0.5 (If you guess my favorite club in that league, you’ll get an auto 30)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lmlJn-zG7qq3vmYdm2lsuzifuaofOVERN7QnPEAc_hM/edit?usp=sharing

josh.e.cohen@gmail.com | Debated for 4 years on the National Circuit for JR Masterman AC

1---TLDR

Tech>truth. No hard-line preferences—debate however you want. Weigh. Make a chain and send speech docs in PDFs or Word. Will evaluate anything—K, theory, framing, trix, phil. Signpost, please.

2---GENERAL

Speed: Read whatever speed you want. You should be sending a doc anyway. I will not flow off a doc, though. I know that is confusing.

Clarity: Signpost and tell me where to start every speech after rebuttal. If there are more than 2 sheets, tell the order to stack my paper in. Will be so happy if you pause for a second between sheets.

Weighing: Weighing is prolly the most important part of my ballot and I will always look there first. Weigh a lot and weigh well and you will prolly win. With that said I think that a lot of weighing that is done in PF is honestly really really bad—please make it comparative. Also, please answer your opponents' weighing, compare your weighing mechs, etc.

Extensions: I am (sadly for you) a stickler for extensions and will be highly receptive to "no extension" claims. So, read blippy extensions at your own risk. This also applies to defense; answering a frontline is not the same as a defensive extension. Please be clear which one you are doing.

Engagement: Extensions through ink are possibly a top 3 most annoying thing in debate. Please don't just keep asserting the same frontline/backline over and over again. Engage, critically think, compare, etc. and it will make my and your lives both a lot easier. I would like to avoid intervening on the link level, and if I am forced to you may be upset.

Evidence: Lowkey actually do not care that much about evidence quality. Warrants>>>>. I will not read evidence unless I am told to AND am told how to read the evidence with specific thresholds. Cut your cards. Power tagging is annoying---don't do it

3---THEORY

General: I will not tell you what my theory preferences are because it will not impact my decision, and I really hate judges that project their opinions about certain norms on their paradigm.

Friv: I will evaluate friv. Will try to be as non-interventionist as possible, but if you are reading something dumb, dumb responses are just logically more convincing.

One Exception: If you run disclo but don't open source I will give you the lowest speaks possible.

Defaults: Don’t know why I need to put this into my paradigm, but letting you know I will default CIs and no RVIs (I guess??). This should be debated, though, not something that I decide pre-round---not sure why it is a norm that I need to tell you.

4---K DEBATE

General: Pretty comfortable evaluating most standard PF ks (cap, sec, fem IR, set col, etc.) but feel free to do whatever.

T-FW: Read it, I guess. Fairness is (maybe) an impact.

K v K: Need to see more of this in PF. Would love to evaluate.

Some Pet Peeves: Please explain what my ballot does; it will make both of our lives easier. If u read an alt that is "reject the neg/aff" I will be sad. Do not paraphrase Ks; if you do I will cap speaks at 27.

5---SPEAKS

Speaks will generally be very high and will only be determined by in round strategy and never based on speaking style

+1 speaks if you are the only varsity entry from your school at a bid tournament (tell me)

+1 speaks if you don't have a coach (tell me)

-2 speaks if you are a big school and add an xyzdocs@gmail.com to the chain

6---MISC

a---I’ll presume for the team that spoke first, but obviously warrants that are read in round can change that.

b---I will stop flowing when time stops. That does not mean you get to finish your sentence. I will not budge on this.

c---If both teams agree to read a case from a previous topic you can totally do that

PF captain at Bronx Science (she/her)

I am tech > truth. Generally, i will vote for the cleanest link chain and best weighed impact. Be respectful to your opponents (clash is good but if it becomes problematic it will be an auto L and 0 speaks). I don't tolerate racism, homophobia, xenophobia, misgendering, etc.

Email chains/questions: doshim@bxscience.edu

+0.5 speaks if you make a Suits reference :)

General Preferences for PF:

• Speed is fine but I might miss stuff if you are speaking too fast. If you are worried that this might happen, send a speech doc to me and your opponents.

• Make sure to signpost throughout your speech so I know where you are on the flow.

• Collapse in the back half of the round and make sure to extend any arguments that you are going for.

• FRONTLINE AND WEIGH (and make sure to warrant everything out)! Start doing comparative weighing as soon as possible in the round.

• I evaluate from bottom to top. If you have strong weighing, it can really help win you the round.
  
  

• I do not flow cross. If there is something you want me to evaluate from cross, you must bring it up in a speech.

• For the love of god, pls implicate and warrant everything.

• Do not introduce new responses after 1st summary.

• Defense is not sticky (extend your defense if you want it to be evaluated).

• I care about evidence ethics; don't lie about cards.

• Pls have cut cards

novices skip:

• CWS: I don't really care for them, I’m not opposed to theory about them but you will probably have to work harder to convince me to vote for them.

• FW: I like framework and will evaluate it but both sides should interact with it effectively. Extend it throughout all your speeches, respond to your opponent’s warrants, and tell me why I should prefer it. If no framework is introduced, I default to util.

Theory:

• I think theory is really important for calling out in round abuses. If the violation is one of the things I mentioned at the top (i.e racism, homophobia, etc.) I will end the round.

• I default to no RVIs

• Disclo and T is fine! I won’t hack for it though.

• Cross should check: don’t mislead your opponents and know what you are talking about.

• Friv theory is fun but I probably won’t know how to evaluate it.

Ks:

I am most experienced with non-topical Ks (have run Jewish rage + Fem killjoy on the circuit)

• Don't run Ks just because you think it's an easy win. It should be obvious that you did research on it/you didn't just steal it off of the policy wiki. Ks are an important part of bringing awareness to different issues in the debate space, don't diminish that. If I can tell you don’t know what you are talking about, I will probably vote against you.

• Make sure there is a clear ROTB that is extended throughout the round so that I know what I am voting on.

• Generally, I believe that prefiat > postfiat. Obviously I’ll evaluate a T shell fairly but I would much rather watch a round with a methods debate/disads.

• I’m not too familiar with the lit around topical K’s so if you run one treat me like a lay and explain thoroughly.

• Alts should be specific and clear.
  
  

Blake '21, UChicago '25

Did PF on the nat circuit for 3 years and I am currently an Assistant Coach for Blake.

Tl;dr:

- Pls run paraphrasing theory: Paraphrasing is awful, evidence is VERY important to me and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs, its better for everyone.

- Strike me if you don't read cut cards/if you paraphrase or don't think evidence is important, you will be happy that you did.

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are not paraphrasing.

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isn't sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it must be in both back half speeches.

- Please weigh.

- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.

- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, Darren Chang, and Shane Stafford.

jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedocs@googlegroups.com -- Put BOTH on the email chain, and feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me. I am always happy to do what I can after the round to help you out.

General Paradigm:

- I will enforce speech times, prep time, etc with a timer and the ballot (if its like absolutely egregious, taking multiple minutes longer than you are allowed, etc)

- In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are 8 sheets, then yes, please give a roadmap.

- The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense.

- The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or if it is going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. None of this sticky defense nonsense. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me.

- Speed: I can handle all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak super fast, and I can understand every word, and I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear, and vice versa. I will say clear if I cant follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must). IF you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.

- Pls send speech docs with cut cards, I will probably ask for them so then I can read cards without having to call for a million different ones, and it shortens the amount of time taken for ev exchange by a million, so just pls send them.

- Weighing: You need to weigh on both the link and impact level, very often the team that weighs will pick up my ballot. I don't hate buzzwords as much as other PF judges, but I do need an explanation. Please start weighing as early as possible, in the rebuttals if you can. Early weighing helps you make strategic decisions and makes my life easier since weighing is what guides my ballot. I will always prefer weighing done earlier and dropped, over late weighing so weigh early and often. The evaluation of the round on my ballot starts and ends with weighing and it controls where I look to vote. I don't need a story or a super clear narrative, but write my ballot for me and make it easy. In line with this, I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

- Collapse: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE collapse, preferably starting in second rebuttal. This makes all of our lives easier because you don't want to have to spam buzzwords blippily in response to some poorly extended argument, and I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.

- I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, it should be exceedingly obvious, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself (specifically that delinks the link you read in case or something which makes the opposite argument that you made initially) to get out of turn offense. It makes being first impossible and its just so stupid. I won't evaluate those arguments and your opponents are free to extend those turns. Obviously, you can concede your opponents defense, but you cant read it on yourself, new in second rebuttal.

- If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it (or at least make arguments as to why they can respond later). I don't know where i stand on this technically yet, but this is where i am leaning now, arguments can be made either way on this issue in round and i will evaluate them normally, but if the 1st constructive introduces framework and the 2nd constructive drops it, i think its ok for the first rebuttal to call it conceded unless otherwise argued.

- On advocacies/T: This is something that should be resolved in the round and I will eval the flow if this argument is made but my personal thoughts are as follows. Because the neg doesn't get a CP in PF, the aff's advocacy does not block the neg out of ground (basically neither side gets to control the others ground). The aff does the whole aff, the neg can garner DAs off of the aff's advocacy or any interpretation of what the aff could look like, not just what that aff was in that round. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works - the point being that PF should consider some sort of method to adjudicate this in round.

- Be nice and respectful, but keep it light and casual if you can! Debate is fun, so lets treat it as such.

- I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism, sexism, death, patriarchy (etc) good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.

- I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), if you do the flip or enter the room before im there, etc.

Evidence:

I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. Disclaimer: this is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Ev is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an arg as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point. Here a few main points on evidence issues:

- Evidence is the backbone of the activity, otherwise it devolves into some really garbage nonsense (I do not value debate as a lying competition). As a result, debates about evidence are very easy ways to pick me up. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will probably call for cards at the end of the round because most debate evidence is horrifically miscut or paraphrased. Evidence quality is very very important, and I have NO PROBLEM intervening against awful evidence especially in close rounds. Good evidence is important for education and quality of debate, so if you have bad evidence, I am happy to drop you for it to improve the activity and hopefully teach you a lesson. This applies to both if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it, so generally cut good cards, and read good evidence.

- Paraphrasing: The single worst wide-spread practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Its just so obviously silly. Its bad for the quality of debate, its bad for all of its educational benefits, and its unfair. I hate it so so much. So please cut cards, its not difficult and it makes everyone's lives better. That said, I know that it happens regardless so here are a few things important for the in round if you do paraphrase:

a. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE have a cut card or at least a paragraph, you absolutely need to be able to have this, its a rule now. Your opponents do not need to take prep to sort through your PDFs, and if you cant quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.

b. If you paraphrase, you MUST be reading full arguments. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank. Claim, warrant, ev is all required if I am going to vote on it or even flow it.

c. If you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you cant find it when asked and you make the arg "just evaluate as an analytic" I will also give an L25 and be in a really bad mood. Its a terrible, terrible argument, so please dont make it. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

d. Dont be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is no longer world in which someone who paraphrases, even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 29 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

- Evidence exchange: if the header "paraphrasing" meant you skipped over that part of my paradigm, I will reiterate something that is important regardless of how you introduce the evidence; if you cant produce a card upon being asked for it within a minute or two, at best you get lowest speaks I can give and probably the L too.

- Even if its not theory, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me. Please make those arguments, I think they are very true.

- Another thing im shocked i have to put in my paradigm, but you need to cite the author you are reading even if you paraphrase from them, for it to be counted as evidence and not an analytic. if you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of ev, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. Its plagiarism and extremely unethical. This is an educational activity, come on ppl.

Progressive paradigm:

DISLCAIMER: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value and can be transformative. Arguments that say debate is bad, and should be destroyed entirely (often times this is the conclusion of non-topical pess arguments, killjoy, the like) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. Doesn't mean they are unwinnable, but it is probably wildly unstrategic to run them.

I'm receptive to all args, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting REALLY low quality recently. I worry about the long term impact about some of these really bad versions on the activity. Please, think about the model you are advocating for, think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it.

- While there are obvious upsides to progressive arguments, I don't appreciate frivolous theory (see below). This does include spikes and tricks, I don't like them, pls don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round.

- I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments

Theory:

- I probably default to competing interps unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this paradigm. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate it normally.

- I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this might be an RVI on IVIs.

- IVIs are really bad for debate. If they are a rules claim, make it a theory shell. Most of the time, they are vague whines that are spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop.

- I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. Even theory like social distancing or contact info are ones where its hard to win in front of me, and in some contexts I probably won't vote on it. Resolved theory and other nonsense will barely warrant getting flowed for me, I won't vote on them.

- Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.

- Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as theres some offense on the shell. I personally think its good for the debate space and am very predisposed to voting for it. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off (like before a para bad shell) I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it.

- Disclosure is good: I am less excited to hear it because typically, disclosure rounds are really bad and messy. Open source is good too, I have come around on it, so you can basically run whatever disclosure interp you want. Run it if you think you can win it, but dont be fearful to hear it ran against you in front of me. Respond to it, and I will vote as I would a normal flow.

- Trigger warnings: This theory has been read a lot more recently, I will eval it like a normal shell, but for the record, I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that dont need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically.

Kritiks/Arguments that people in PF are calling "Kritiks" even when they are not:

- I am all good with kritiks, although im not as experienced with them as I am with other args, but that isnt a reason not to run a K in front of me. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well.

- Blake 2021 made me think about this a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. So please think through all of the arguments you read, so that you can articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

- Also, no one thinks fiat is real (pre/post-fiat is just an inaccurate and irrelevant label), so lets be more specific about how we label arguments or discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument because NO ONE THINKS ITS REAL. Just get past that label and explain why.

- You also need to do a pretty good amount of work explaining why or how discourse shapes reality, just asserting it does isn't much of a warrant and this debate is always underdeveloped in rounds I am in.

Speaks:

I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy bc I never give speaks that high almost ever.

I'm a Blake debate alumna and now an assistant coach.

Worlds Schools debate was my main format, and I competed it for three years at the national level. Speech content: include the principle debate, rebuild / extend arguments from the first speech in the second speeches, and become more globalized for third and fourth speeches. Weigh - and early!! Speaking style: signpost.

As a secondary format, I competed in PF. I am very familiar with the format, and lay on most topics. Read dates, signpost, and I prefer cards / evidence over paraphrasing.

Be nice to each other! At the end of the day, debating is about learning and having fun.

EMAILS FOR EMAIL CHAINS: blakedocs@googlegroups.com and sierra@u.northwestern.edu

Hello,

I am the mother of 2 PF Debaters; however, I am not well versed in technical debate and should be taken as a parent judge. I will not flow, and English is not my first language. To me a convincing argument, charisma, and strong speaking skills are important. PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD.

I will give everyone the same highest speaker points for each team.

I look forward to judging you.

I am a parent judge with limited experience. Please do not spread and remember to signpost. Please be respectful and remember to have fun!

I did 4 years of public forum for duPont Manual High School.

email: adigollamudi@gmail.com
throw me in the email chain if there is one

General:

Warranting is key. A few well-warranted responses will always be better than a bunch of small unexplained blips (aka quality>quantity). Don't just read card names explain important evidence and give me the warranting

Please have full extensions of arguments with uniqueness, link and impact. Without that, I will not feel comfortable voting off of it. Saying the word extend is not an extension lol.

Collapse. I like when debaters narrow the focus of the debate and spend more time talking ab a few things. Again Quality>Quantity

Everything you want me to vote off of needs to be in summary and final.

Weighing is really important. If both teams win their offense and only one team weighs they're getting the W even if the weighing is bad. I will not do work for you here so if your impact is bigger or better tell me how and why. Also tell me why your weighing is better than your opponents if they read any.

Don't spread preferably (I don't think you need it to give a great speech in PF). I'll prob be okay with a little speed tho. If you're going to go fast, send a speech doc.

Signpost por favor. Tell me what case you're responding to or talking about and what part of the argument you're on.

Have fun, don't get mad, debate isn't that deep, throw in a lil uzi vert reference for 30 speaks.

Progressive Debate:

I'm honestly not super comfortable evaluating a lot of progressive debates because I didn't really get that much exposure to it on the circuit but I've debated against theory and Ks a few times. If you wanna run something progressive I'm game as long as you tell me clearly how to evaluate it.

Evidence Ethics/intervening:
Cut your evidence properly lol. I want to intervene as little as possible but if there is an important piece of ev that I'm told to call for and it is super power tagged I'll drop it from the flow.

my love for good warranting and logic also applies here: don't assume the debate is over because something you say is backed by a card and what your opponents say isn't. If what they say logically makes sense, I'll buy it. Evidence supports logic and reasoning.

crossfire:
I'm not going to vote off of anything in cross but I'll prob be listening because it's fun! I also don't care if you want to make every cross open (anyone can speak).

Speaker points:
for speaks don't be abusive, rude, or give me any other reason to dock you.

if you have questions about my paradigm, me, or my decision for the round feel free to ask questions I don't mind explaining. Losing is an extremely big and important part of this activity so embrace the Ls and ask me if you want to learn what you could have done to win.

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

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

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

My email is rohunx12@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

L-D Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

INTERPoverall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

I’m a lay judge. Don’t spread, speak clearly, and collapse on your arguments.

LOL JK - I’ve debated PF for all 4 years of HS but if you treat me like a lay and go slow or make the round entertaining somehow I’ll give you extra speaks!

Preferences

• I can handle some speed, but speak clearly. If I can’t understand something in Constructive, I can’t evaluate it.
• FOR ROUNDS WITH HEAVY SPREADING SEND SPEECH DOCS ESPECIALLY FOR CONSTRUCTIVE AND REBUTTAL
• Collapse and on your arguments and weigh to make it easy for me to vote
• Don’t bring entirely new arguments in second summary, if your opponents call a timeskew, I’ll accept it
• I’m familiar with Theory, Ks, and progressive debate, but I’m not too good. If you plan to go prog, treat me like a lay and go slow.
• Always be respectful and courteous to your opponent

If you have any other questions about me or my preferences feel free to ask my before round :)

My email: ibu4404@gmail.com

^you can add me to the email chain if you want, but it’s fine if you don’t. If I need a card I’ll ask for it.

Qualification: I have about 4 years of Public Forum debate and speech experience from my high school years and have judging experience.

Judge Paradigm:

1. I don't mind the general speed of the debaters but please be clear and coherent while speaking.

2. I would like to see an organized and smoothly flowed debate round.

3. Please support your arguments and refutations with thorough explanation and strong evidence.

4. Please make sure to tell me why you think you won the round by weighing out the arguments and refutations during your summary and final focus. Be sure to connect the dots of the round for me by telling me if any points are dropped or still standing.

5. Please do not be rude.

Please use content warnings for content related to SA or self-harm.

Hi! I'm Neel (they/them). I debated at Plano East (TX), starting out in circuit PF and debating circuit LD during my senior year. I now attend Michigan (I don't debate for the school) and would say that I'm somewhat removed from debate.

Yes, put me on the chain - gimmeurcards@gmail.com

Be mindful of how rusty I may be - go slower, explain topic jargon, and all that jazz - it'll be tremendously helpful for how confident I am in my decision and your speaks.

Tech > truth, but a combination is ideal. Don't be rude, because I can also decide that not being mean > tech.

I primarily find/found myself in debates that center around policy or kritikal positions both as a debater and a judge. I'm not very confident in my ability to adjudicate very fast and blippy theory/T, phil, or tricks debates. I'd say I'm a 1 for policy, a 1/2 for the kritik (aff or neg), a 3 for theory/T, and a 4/strike for phil or tricks.

For policy -

Impact turns are fine, but I refuse to listen to death good.

Evidence quality is your best friend in front of me.

I'm probably more open to letting CP theory debates unfold than other judges.

Read more than 1 argument on case please.

For the kritik -

I have a soft spot for cool K-affs, but I'm neutral on framework and all of the iterations you can go for.

Your overviews should have a purpose - apply stuff you say to the LBL and contextualize the things you are saying.

I've been in more debates about identity and the "stock" kritiks than pomo stuff - do with that what you will.

Cool case args are my jam (even presumption is cool).

For T/theory -

CIs, no RVIs, DTA for theory. DTD for T.

Huge fan of disclosure but I feel uncomfortable evaluating other violations sourced outside of round.

I'm very mid for frivolous shells.

Be organized and clear please.

For tricks and phil -

Not a great idea - I probably would barely be able to follow along a Philosophy 101 course.

If you want to read these, SLOW DOWN and number stuff.

Evil demons don't force me to vote aff and I only evaluate debates after the 2AR.

I honestly am just uninterested in 95% of this literature base - sorry.

For PF -

Good for all the progressive stuff and PF speed. I will hold you to a higher standard than most progressive PF judges.

Sticky defense is silly. Extend your arguments.

Turns case arguments are the truth. Probability weighing is fake.

Underutilized arguments and strategies are fun - if you can win the presumption debate or the impact turn, go for it.

Howdy folks.

I participated in four years of Parliamentary Debate and a year in Social Justice Debates. I am now three years post-grad and have been out of the debate circuit during that time. I am going to offer some general positions I hold as a judge in hopes it provides some use to you in round.

First, I want a clear weighing mechanism for how I will be evaluating the round. I am a flow judge and will be voting in the scope of the best articulated role of my ballot. Do not just say how I should be viewing the round, tell me why it is I should be viewing the round that way. Winning this and bringing it through in your rebuttal makes it quite likely I will vote for you.

Second, well delivered rebuttals are crucial. I will not weigh new arguments but also would like debaters to point out if the other team makes one. I've been out of the game a while and would hate to miss one, so please do not assume I will automatically catch everything. Along with rebuttals, tell me exactly why you won the round and pull across your arguments. I spent a lot of my debate career trying to perfect my rebuttals and appreciate a well delivered and articulated last speech. Narrow the round for me and explain clearly why you are the winner. I do not want to do work for you.

Third, I don't LOVE spec arguments. Obviously run one if there is clear in round abuse, but these kinds of arguments were never my specialty, so if you're going for it, explain to me in clear detail why the argument is necessary.

Lastly, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, be kind y'all. This is a really small community where we get to come together and discuss ways we could positively change the world. Nothing irks me more than teams that walk into the room like they are better than anyone else. This is an activity we elect to participate in so be sure to make it inclusive and encouraging. Nothing will make me vote against you faster than seeing rude or abusive behavior. So do not talk over people in cross ex, do not make rude remarks about the other team in your speeches, and win your arguments simply because they are better arguments. It's pretty simple but I have seen too many teams make it pretty hard.

Talk clearly, talk logically, talk kindly, and you will do well. (:

hi y'all! i'm a varsity pf debater at bronx science and i use she/her pronouns

email chain (add me please): kimk9@bxscience.edu

tldr: tech > truth, line-by-line, signpost, write my ballot, prog good. i always vote off the flow. read any arguments, weighing, framework, etc., but always give warrants.

speaks: i'm generally generous with speaks and go based on the strategy you present. i usually start at 27 and i go up or down from there.

speed: i "spread" often so go at any speed you would like. just not too fast when not necessary..if i miss something, that's on you.

general/novices:

- always warrant everything.

- please frontline all offense in second rebuttal, otherwise it will go conceded on my flow. offense you're going for in the back half should also be frontlined.

- responses must be extended through each speech if you want me to consider it.

- i don't flow cross, but i'll always be listening. if there is a point that you would like me to pay attention to or vote off of, make sure you bring it up in your next speech.

- collapse and weigh. at the end of the round, if only one team extends weighing, i'll most likely give my ballot to them. so, make sure to weigh even if you forget to collapse.

- please make your weighing comparative and explicitly tell me why I should vote for your impacts even if they win their entire case. do not just say you save __ amount of lives or dump different statistics of lives and expect a ballot.

- do not bring up new evidence in final focus or second summary. i will not flow it or use it to make my ballot.

- cut your cards please. i'll never personally call for a card or explicitly look over one, unless you tell me to do so.

- please give an off-time roadmap before each speech and signpost in your speech, so i know where i am on my flow.

- time yourselves. i'll never cut you off if you have a few words left, but i'll cut u off once you exceed 7-10 seconds.

prog/tech (novices do not have to read):

content warnings: if you plan to read any argument, with potentially triggering content, please read content warnings with anonymous opt outs. if anyone chooses to opt out, respect their decision and have an alternate case/argument ready to read please.

fw: if the fw is conceded or agreed upon, ill only consider arguments implicated under that framework. if both teams drop the framework, it wont be a factor to my ballot.

theory/t:

- definite no: i don't understand plans, cps, trix, TKOs, so please dont run them with me.

- disclosure: i believe that disclosure is a good norm. however, i'll never default my ballot to disclosure good. it is very much possible to win why it is better for teams not to disclose. like any argument, if you are winning on the flow, the ballot will go to you.

- paraphrasing: i have no preference in whether you paraphrase or not. however, i ask that you disclose and have cut cards available if you do plan to paraphrase.

- friv: personally, i find friv theory to be very fun and i'm more than open to hearing and evaluating it. however, i ask that you don't run friv theory if you happen to hit a team in their bubble round.

kritiks:

- engaging with critical literature is good. it exposes debaters to non-hegemonic discourses, which are more sparse in PF. if a team reads a k, i would rather have you debate the round than concede or ignore it (even if it is your first k round ever).

- send speech doc and cards for case. if you know that you will be excessively spreading in any other speech, i ask that you send a speech doc so that i can follow along better.

- topical/non-topical ks: i'm best at evaluating fem killjoy, identity, cap, and general known ones. however, i'm open to hearing and evaluating new types of nonT ks. please make the ROTB/ROTJ as explicit as possible though. i don't run T ks as often, but i have ran a T k before, and i would be open to it.

- links/alt: links are super important. if you are spreading your k, i ask that you at least slow down and contextualize your links. if you want me to give you the ballot based off the alt, you have to explain to me what exactly that means for the round/world.

- cross should check. if your opponents ask you questions about how they can better engage, answer in the best way possible please.

- dont read ks on novices.

note: racism, sexism, and discriminatory behavior is not tolerated. i'll simply drop you with the lowest speaks possible and report you. respect you opponents and their pronouns. general rudeness isn't appreciated either.

~ finally, have fun.

tl;dr: I am a flay judge who votes on 1) weighing and 2) clean narrative and analysis.

--

Below is my detailed paradigm:

• I prefer clearly articulated arguments with logical links, warrants, and impacts.

• I will not have the same level of understanding of the topic as you do, so don't expect me to catch everything if you're rapid-fire-spitting content. I prefer you speak more conversationally and keep the event a "public" forum. The faster you speak, the more likely I am to miss content.

• Repetition is key to understanding. Make sure you're extending points you want me to vote on until the final focus.

• Weigh impacts and links through direct comparison. Tell me why your impacts are more significant and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. The clearer, the better and the more likely I am to vote for you.

• Please do not read theory, Kritik, or other progressive arguments. I have a shallow understanding and won't make a good decision should I evaluate them.

• Please read content warnings or have an opt-out form for sensitive topics and ask if the opposing team is okay with you reading the argument. You must have an alternate case if they aren't. I have the right to drop you if I think you're making the round an unsafe space.

Equity and Fairness

• This is my number one priority. Please notify me (if you feel comfortable doing so) if you feel discriminated against, uncomfortable with someone or something, or need help.

Speech/Interp

- I am okay with you timing yourself and will not penalize you for glancing at your clock from time to time (as long as it does not heavily impede your performance) if you are an online competitor.

- Depending on the event, I would like a cohesive story that compels me to feel a certain way (sad, mad, caring, aware of an issue, happy, etc.)

- Hand gestures and walking appropriately are a must (walking between points, appropriate hand gestures during scenes/arguments, etc.)

- Extemp: refer to my congress paradigm for how I like argumentation in this context, I appreciate humorous/informative introductions and conclusions that wrap around to it. Walking from point to point is very important in exempt, same with recent sources.

- Interp/OO: I want to feel motivated after hearing your speech (do so with passion in your tone, dramatic/overemphasized facial expression and gestures, etc.)

- If your speech includes an argument, see my congress paradigm and the constructive portion of my debate paradigm.

- I understand and will work through technical difficulties with you! I am committed to upholding equity in rounds, and if there is a way I can help with that, please let me know!

World Schools, Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas

- I want to see warrant level refutation in the majority of refutation points you have (claim level will be discarded on the flow and data level refutation should clearly explain why their data is flawed/not representative of the analysis they are attaching to it).

- Don't spread :)

- LD and PF: you can use technical jargon with me. I ask that you don't if you know you have a lay judge on a panel with me (again, for accessibility). WSD: this is a more relaxed debate format and tech isn't as important for me when I vote.

- Cross: I judge using cross (and POIs for WSD). I won't ignore this and I want to see really thought-provoking and challenging questions. I will follow your question in terms of noticing when you set traps. Don't use this as an opportunity for extra speaking time though, make sure the questioning gets to the point. Also, be polite!

- Constructive material: Little pre-refutation on the aff, please. Neg is okay to have refutation in the first constructive speech, but I still want the vast majority of the speech to be constructive. Please try and connect your constructive material to your opponents (blend your arguments with refutation of theirs- I LOVE when debaters cross apply).

- I flow everything, so please be organized in every speech and make it clear where you are (roadmap and taglines please). I expect clear voters for the final speech in around for both sides and a clear understanding of what you are doing in a speech. (Ex: "I'm going to do a line-by-line, first addressing my opponent's constructive, then their refutation of my own arguments, followed by the round's voters"; then during the speech, you can say, "moving on to their rebuttals of my first constructive"). Make sure you give a quick summary of your opponents' argument before you refute it though.

- Impacts/Impact Calculus: I'm fair game for all impact jargon. Make sure when you are weighing you bring in quantification (if applicable) for magnitude/severity and you clearly explain based on a weighing mechanism (probability, severity, magnitude, etc.) why your argument wins.

- Argument format: Claim, Warrant, Data, Impact. If you miss any of those, I will likely drop your argument.

- Data: I prefer quantification when they are applicable. Please state at least the month and year of cards (if you can) and the institution they are from. I treat evidence challenges seriously, so don't hesitate to call an opponent out if you can't find their card or think it is faked/unfairly misrepresented. I also can smell when sources are bad (especially if it's a topic I have debated before), so please do not make up or misquote sources for your own sake.

- There is so much more I can say, but the TLDR is that I'm down for advanced debate stuff (speed, jargon) and that I value good and thorough refutation above most things.

Congress

- Most importantly, I VALUE REFUTATION SPEECHES. Judges in congress too easily disregard late-round ref/crystal speeches. For this reason (and because it takes major skill to do this) I emphasize ref/crystal speeches. If you give a good one, you will be rewarded heavily in my rankings.

- I want to see all of your skills, so don't just fill one role during the round(don't only give ref speeches or only constructive).

-Quality is better than quantity for questions(I listen to them)

- POs: I will be keeping recency and precedence for questioning (if it's direct) and speeches. I like good POs. If you are considering POing, make sure you know how to run an amendment properly.

- Organization: Constructive speeches should usually have this format: Introduction, 2 points (claim, warrant, data, analysis, data, impact), and conclusion. Make sure I can understandably follow your arguments.

- Refutation: Same as in my debate paradigm, but if this is ref being added to a constructive speech, make sure you integrate this into your points. If you give a point similar to someone on the other side, I expect you to refute them in order for your point to have validity.

- Half-refutation speeches are great, so is impact calculus

- While I am a much more debate-oriented judge, please have solid and rhetorical introductions and conclusions. Speak at a nice pace (I will understand you if you go fast, but you shouldn't in Congress) and try to mitigate fluency breaks.

- Walking: Walk from your introductions to your points and back for your conclusions. Please don't sway if you can.

- A lot of the same stances for debate and congress, so please read my other paradigm too (the difference with Congress is I also judge based on speaking ability pretty much).

Looking forward to seeing you perform/debate!

I am affiliated to East Ridge high school in Woodbury, MN. I have been judging Public forum debates for past 3 years. I prefer teams to speak slow, loud and clear so I can follow through.

Great Communicator Series: Please refer to just the Main PF Paradigm and the GCS Rules.

Background:I am a second-year law student at NYU and work with Delbarton (NJ). He/Him/His pronouns.

Email Chains: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into the email and send it in the email chain. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

Evidence: Reading Cut card > Paraphrasing. Even if you paraphrase, I require cut cards. These are properly cut cards. No cut card = your evidence won't be evaluated in the round.

Main PF Paradigm:

• Offense>Defense. Ultimately, offense wins debates and requires proper arg extensions, frontlining, and weighing. It will be hard to win with just terminal defense. But please still extend good defense.
• Speed. I will try my best to handle your pace, but also know if you aren't clear, it will be harder for me to flow.
• Speech specifics: Second Rebuttal -- needs to frontline first rebuttal responses. Anything in Final Focus should be in Summary (weighing is a bit more flexible if no one is weighing). Backhalf extensions, frontlining, and "backlining" matter.
• Please weigh. Make sure it's comparative weighing and uses either timeframe, magnitude, and/or probability. Strength of link, clarity of impact, cyclicality, and solvency are not weighing mechanisms.
• I'll evaluate (almost) anything. Expect that I'll have already done research on a topic, but I'll evaluate anything on my flow (tech over truth). I will interfere (and most likely vote you down) if you argue anything racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., evidence issues).
• I will always allow accommodations for debaters. Just ask before the round.

"Progressive" PF:

• Ks - I'm okay with the most common K's PFers try to run (i.e. Fem/Fem IR, Capitalism, Securitization, Killjoy, etc.), but I am not familiar with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). But please don't overcomplicate the backhalf.
• Theory - Debate is a game, so do what you have to do. If you're in the varsity/open division, please don't complain that you can't handle varsity-level arguments. *** Evidence of abuse is needed for theory (especially disclosure-related shells). I will (usually) default competing interps. I generally think disclosure is good, open source is not usually necessary (unless your wiki upload is just a block of text), and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene if you win the flow.
• Trigger warnings with opt-outs are necessary when there are graphic depictions in the arg, but are not when there are non-graphic depictions about oppression (general content warning before constructive would still be good). Still, use your best judgment here.
• ***Note -- if you read an excessive number of off positions that appear frivolous, I will be very receptive to reasonability and have a high threshold for your arguments. So it probably won't work to your advantage to read them in front of me. Regardless of beliefs on prog PF, these types of debate are, without a doubt, awful and annoying to judge. I'll still evaluate it, but run at your own risk.

Misc: Please pre flow before the round; I don't think crossfire clarifications are super important to my ballot, so if something significant happens, you should make it in ink and bring it up in the next speech; I'm okay if you speak fast (my ability to handle it is diminishing now though lol), but please give me a doc; speaker points usually range from 28-30.

Questions? Ask before the round.

I consider myself primarily a flow judge that really just looks into the value and impact of the arguements at hand aswell as feasability of the actual contentions.

I do not take counterplan contentions into consideration as that detracts from the purpose of the topic in debate in general.

Also try not to spend too much time on framework and definitions, I believe that these topics are typically more or less straightfoward and these topics open for interpretation that should not be a means of restriction aslong as it is within the boundries of the debate =)

Weigh your impacts please!!

Hello, I am Ethan and I have been a public forum debater for around a year now. I’ve had relatively limited experience judging, but there are some particular things that I found I like and dislike in debates.

To start off, I really despise spreading. The whole point of PF is that it’s supposed to palatable and easily digestible to the average Joe. Speaking at 1000 words per minute is not easily digestible in the slightest. Quality over the quantity — WHAT you say is more valuable to me than HOW MUCH you say.

I also don’t like it when people make grimaces or unpleasant facial expressions towards their opponents. I think it’s quite unprofessional and you don’t need to perform all sorts of mental gymnastics and psychological warfare to succeed in a debate.

Other things I dislike include:

1. arguments made purely based off of probability… Unless you provide me some out of this world evidence to suggest your impact has an extremely high chance of occurring
2. Not providing links. Don’t tell me the economy will crash without explaining to me HOW and WHY
3. taking personal jabs at your opponent. Obviously this is standard protocol
4. Thinking speaking louder = better. It’s not!!
5. Focusing too much on outliers and not the general principle (ex. Saying we should abolish prisons because there are people in there who were falsely convicted. While it is true false convictions happen, most people in prison are legitimately guilty. Always remember the exception DOES NOT make the rule)
6. I’m against interrupting in cross if it’s happening repeatedly and the cross is turning into a cat fight, but if your opponent has been rambling on for over a minute now, please don’t hesitate to cut them off.

On the contrary, some things I DO like include:

1. Analogies - makes complex ideas more understandable to laymen
2. weighing - tell me WHY your argument is superior to your opponent’s
3. Setting up a framework - Long term or short term? Economic growth or environmental well being? You tell me… and don’t be reluctant to contest your opponent’s framework either!!
4. Having BROAD impacts not niche ones, and framing your impacts in a way that shows material effect on actual people’s lives (ex. Saying “if x happens, then the economy will suffer” doesn’t hold the same weight as saying “if x happens, the economy will suffer and 10 million people will be left without food or shelter”).

Give some context in your opening speech but don’t read me an entire encyclopedia on the topic. Remember, your opening speech is still meant to be argumentative NOT informative.

Your opponent can make an argument that’s absolutely ludicrous but if you fail to directly address it then I’m assuming you concede… Same goes with evidence. Your opponent can cite evidence from a literal Tumblr blog but if you don’t directly call them out on it, I’m assuming you think their sources are fine/reliable. Remember it’s YOUR job to call out your opponent if their evidence/arguments are flawed, not mine!!

Delivery matters of course. Be confident, articulate and project your voice… But ultimately the substance of your arguments is what matters most (it’s the make or break factor!).

Public Forum

I have coached PF for about 8 years so I have a fair bit of knowledge about the style and most likely the topic that is being debated as well. This means that you should not worry too much about speed or giving arguments that are too complex. I'm a lay judge :)

My comments after the round will usually involve RFD and how to improve some arguments. The "improvements" part has no impact whatsoever on my decision in the round and is only meant as something to take into your next round. I do not complete arguments for teams or refute them based on my own knowledge. I will judge the round only based on what was said in the round.

Email-fredrickni97@gmail.com

Please don't refer to cards ONLY by author name because I don't note down author names for cards (e.g. "John 18 or Smith 20") I'm putting this at the top so y'all see it.

Content:

-No theory. I won't vote on it. See link for reasons

-Show me clear impacts and weigh them for me. This is super important in how I adjudicate rounds. Just proving a superior number of contention does not give you the round, proving why your contentions are more important wins you the round. Very rarely will there be a round where one side has no contentions standing at all, so I need some sort of metric to measure. This also means that I value a clear framework from both sides and potentially a debate about framework should that influence how I would adjudicate

-Crossfire is not super important to me unless either you go back to it in one of the speeches or something absolutely killer comes out of the exchange

Stylistic:

-Be courteous during cross-fire (ie. do not shout over each other) I will dock points if anyone is particularly rude

Misc:

-Have evidence ready; if the other team asks for it and you cannot give it to them in 1 min, it will be discounted from the round

-I will stop crossfire questions right at 3 minutes but I will allow for you to finish your sentence if the time is up during an answer

-I rarely write out RFD's on Tabroom ballots so my oral feedback after the round is where the majority of my RFD is explained

-I welcome questions or concerns about the round, and if you feel that I judged unfairly, please let me know after. While I cannot change the ballot, I will do my best to explain my RFD.

Parliamentary

I've done various parli-ish styles like BP and Worlds for about a decade now. I haven't judged much American Parli so there might be some rules I am not familiar with, but I'll catch on quickly.

I mostly judge based on content, with very little focus on style as long as I can understand you.

Please keep time for both yourself and your opponents. If you keep asking POIs during protected times I will deduct points. Obnoxious POOs will also lead me to dock you points.

Ryan Parimi - Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Email: ryan.parimi@gmail.com

About me:

• Recent college grad--majored in English with minors in German, Chinese, and Business. Went to a very conservative school. Taking a gap year before law school.
• College and high school debate coach/teacher (LD, PF, Parli)
• High school and middle school mock trial coach
• College moot court coach
• Founded my university's debate program
• Founded a speech and debate camp in Jakarta, Indonesia
• Summer debate instructor at Yale, Drew, and U. of Washington

General Debate Stuff:

• A coach once called me a debate "hipster"; though I enjoy a lot of the more "progressive" arguments, my philosophy of debate still centers on clear arguments and conversational, persuasive speech. After all, you’re trying to win me—not just win arguments in a vacuum. I want to be convinced. Talk to me, don't just talk at me.
• I like aspects of both traditional and circuit debate. I wish the traditional community wouldn't let its fear of everything turning into policy keep it from adopting some helpful circuit norms, and I wish the circuit community would stop trying to convince itself that a total departure from traditional debate turns the activity into anything but an esoteric game with no real-life application.
• Examples of cases that would be great for my taste: a Cap K that links reasonably to the resolution, argued in a more traditional style; a traditional case that demonstrates a deep understanding of the philosophy behind its framework; a tech case that restores my faith in humanity by making semi-reasonable arguments and doesn't force me to flow 10 subpoints of copy-paste garbage from the debate wiki.
• Tech over truth (within reason). You should probably run your tech case for me if you're torn between tech and lay.
• I ♥ when impacts, late-round weighing, and voters connect to your framing.
• LARP begins and ends with an L :)
• I actually know all of the NSDA's evidence rules.

Speed:

• Prioritize clarity over speed. Spreading is lame, but I can flow it and won't vote you down solely because you chose to spread. If you spread, please be good at it: your articulation better not go down the drain, you better stay organized, etc. Bad spreading will tank your speaker points. Email me your case or give me a printed copy before the round if you plan on spreading.

Framework:

• I’m fine with traditional and more modern frameworks. Just make whatever you’re using clear. Be aware that I have a very good understanding of the philosophy behind most frameworks...don't try to BS me on Kant or Rawls or something. I will know. That being said, I believe it's on the debaters to call each other out on stuff like that. I'm going to flow it unless it's crazy.

• Please don't throw the framework debate away. It's what makes LD special.

Kritiks and Theory:

• I haven't judged a ton of Ks because I come from a pretty traditional circuit, but a well-developed K could certainly convince me. Similar to the philosophy behind traditional frameworks, I'm familiar with the critical theories behind most Ks.

• Theory arguments are fine when there is actual abuse--just explain clearly. Don't throw in an RVI just because, save those for something truly egregious.
• I hate disclo and will not vote on it with one exception. Look: disclo sucks, and I'm not even sure why we still let people get away with trying to win on disclo in 2024. Part of debate is learning how to analyze and respond to arguments on the fly. Yes, it's hard. No, I'm not going to give you a win for whining about it being hard. Here's the one exception: if you didn't share your case and you're super spreading (like 400 wpm) to the point where flowing is literally impossible, I will give you the L if your opponent runs disclo.

Other random stuff:

• I like reading Alexander Pope, collecting shoes, listening to Chinese rap, and exploring Marxist criticism.

• I will follow the NSDA rules for LD whenever questions come up that the rules address. I follow tradition/best practices for anything else. If you have questions about specific preferences, just ask before the round.

my name is Paul and this is my second year of Judging. My judging is based on stats and logic. Overall I believe that being respectful during the round is very important. I Judge based on sources. Along with that signposting is very important so I can flow the round well. I also look at a good crossfire that is structured in an organized manner. Finally all the speeches should be signposted and make sure to extend your points! Good luck!

send link chains to markop@princeton.edu if you intend to spread

About me:

In high school, I did two years of LD, two years of PF, and a few tournaments in BQ and Congress. I now am a senior at Princeton University studying public policy and behavioral science.

PF:

Framework:

I am a firm believer that if no framework is given in PF, then I should weigh under a cost-benefit analysis. I personally do not believe that PF rounds should be done with anything other than CBA as the framework because we already have a style of framework debate; it's called LD. That being said, if a framework is given, please make sure you respond to it and do not let it just flow through the round; if their framework is actually useful and not abusive, I might weigh it in my decision.

Crossfire:

I love PF for the crossfire. Be respectful but do not let people push you around. I want to see which side has actual questions for their opponents and which side has actual debating skills. That being said, I do not flow crossfire and if you want any impacts to come out of the crossfire and make it on the flow, you must restate them in one of your following speeches.

Summary:

Make sure you mention everything you want to mention in your final focus in this speech. Don't just give me a second rebuttal; give me also a preliminary conclusion. Tell me what is happening in the round and explain why your side is winning.

Final Focus:

Include the information from the summary. No new evidence. Make sure your impacts and voters are clear and direct. The more back I have to search through the flow for your impacts, the less likely I am to find them and be able to weigh them on your side.

Evidence:

Everything should have a card to go with it; do not make arguments without a card to back you up. I buy logic when direct evidence is not available, but I will always weigh empirical and direct evidence over logical conclusions. A study demonstrating what is actually occurring in the world (be that study descriptive or a lab experiment) is always more accurate than what one simply thinks would happen with a certain policy or governmental action.

Voting:

I am a flow judge by heart. Use every speech to reiterate why you should win and make sure you explain to me what is happening to each argument. Is the argument you stated in the constructive flowing through? Is your opponent's claim still standing? And, most importantly, why are these stances true? Also, make sure to signpost well and tell me what you're attacking or referencing so I can flow your side better; a cleaner flow means an easier ballot.

LD:

Framework:

The framework should be the premise of the round; if you drop your framework, you're essentially dropping the round. Your framework is your ultimate purpose; if you drop your framework, you drop your entire argument.

As usual, logical conclusions are permissible but keep in mind, being asked for a card and not having one is not a strong stance.

LD Kritik:

If you run a K, be sure to extend impacts. Debate is set on the premise of impacts so make sure your alt stands clear and explain why you have won the round very clearly. AFF Ks generally do not run well with me but if you think it works well and has impacts then give it a shot- I’m down for trying anything.

LD CP:

I absolutely love a good counterplan. If you run one, make sure you prove uniqueness and respond to the inevitable perm.

I am ok with any kind of CP or PIC as long as you are unconditional. Being conditional makes no sense; are you advocating for that CP/PIC or is it that unstable we should not rely on it?

I also adore res plus cp, but make sure you explain how you're unique and why I should value your plan over the Aff's in terms of impacts.

LD DA:

If you run a DA, just like with a K, make sure you draw out your impacts and how your side provides any solvency. Just attacking your opponent doesn't just make you the automatic winner - give me a reason why voting for your side is better than your opponents.

LD AFF:

Be CREATIVE! You have to affirm the resolution, but you can still do a lot! Think creatively and make arguments that have an impact! If the flow is a wash on both sides, I will have to weigh impacts so make sure you make yours VERY clear!

Also - Affirmative = affirm the resolution.

also also- I have normally debated in mostly traditional LD circuits. I can flow theory but make sure you explain why that theory matters and why I should uphold it.

Hi! I'm currently a freshman at Northwestern University, but did speech and debate for 6 years previously. I started off in Public Forum in 7th grade but primarily focused on speech events (HI, POI, IMP, INFO) for the rest of my career. Notably, I finished my senior year ranked 1st in Virginia and 12th in the nation overall. Regarding PF, I was runner-up in the Silver Tournament of Champions my senior year and quarter-finaled at CATNATS.

How to Win (IMO):

1. Give an off-time roadmap if you like, but be sure to sign-post throughout so I know where to flow.
2. Speak at whatever speed you want, but please be clear.
3. I won’t really be flowing crossfire, so if there is something that is relevant, say it in a speech. Don't be rude, but it's okay to be assertive.
4. Collapse on specific arguments and make those voters clear. Extend important arguments through ALL speeches.
5. WEIGH
6. Tech > truth. Outrageous arguments are fine as long as the link is strong. Explain your logic clearly, and then prove why the impacts are so important. This is especially powerful when accompanied by quantifiable figures.
7. For sharing evidence, I'll leave it up to the teams to call out any abuse or mis-cutting. You can create an email chain if you like, but I'm also fine with just links in chat or whatever you all decide is easiest.
8. I know progressive debate very loosely, but am not the biggest fan and can't judge it super technically.
9. Confidence is key! Show me that you care and have emotions.

In conclusion, THANK YOU for participating in this fantastic activity. I hope you learn something new and, of course, have fun!

TLDR: Good with Substance, Ks, theory, whatever u want to debate. Over 200wpm, and I'll prob need a doc.

Sinan Roumie (He/Him/His)

Sinanrdebate@gmail.com

I'm a Senior at Bronx Science and have been doing PF for the past four years + a little bit of CX.

Tech > Truth

NO POST ROUNDING. You can ask for feedback, but I'm not interested in you telling me every point in your case and how you should have won. Adapt better, your final focus should be writing my ballot for me.

Anything remotely racist, sexist, ableist, transphobic, homophobic etc, etc will result in an automatic L20

Important In Round Stuff

• Nothing is sticky; extend what you want me to evaluate

• Good with speed, but FF & summary should be slow to clarify offense

• ***I don’t like to do evidence comparisons, I want to vote solely off my flow/what y’all tell me to vote for. However, if an evidence claim is brought up in round I will vote off a lack of evidence/ bad evidence, even if that claim is not a direct evidence challenge.

• Keep your offtime road maps brief

• I listen to cross but it won’t sign my ballot

• Both teams can agree to skip grand for prep

• I presume NEG, unless told otherwise

• Speak overtime and I'll stop flowing

Progressive arguments:

• If you are in Varsity, be prepared to hit varsity arguments.

• Everything should be warranted, especially in the back half.

• Feel free to run progressive arguments on newbies. I think it’s funny, and people learn how to debate these arguments when exposed to them. DON'T DEBATE DOWN- treat every round like its your bubble.

• I don't have a default for what should be evaluated first in the round other than prefiat>postfiat. Def warrant why K>theory, theory>K, etc.

[Theory]:

• Fairness is an internal link, not an impact.

• Baiting theory is fine. It's a valid strategy. If you read baiting theory as a warrant for No RVIs, I'll evaluate it, but I need further implications on why it is bad.

• I default yes RVIs if there's no ink on that debate

• +1 speaker point if you specify whether RVIs apply to offense or defense

• +1.5 speaker points if you read RVI spec [+0.5 more if you win on it]

[K's]:

• Alt should resolve the link- rejecting the aff is not a good alt(unless it is)

• You can spread cards in the 1NC, but i gotta actually understand them by final

• I prefer Identity Ks > philosophical Ks mainly because I understand Identity args better.

• Speaks:

• Performance - if it's good ill give 30s

• Egregious Clipping - speaks cap’d at 28

• Paraphrasing - speaks cap’d at 27

• Callout K - speaks cap’d at 25

[K AFF's]:

• Topical affs are cool, Nontopical affs are also cool.

• Please, please, please have a topic link. Too many affs nowadays don't have topic links, and while that's fine, it would make adjudicating so much easier.

• Please only read a K aff if you are good at debating it. I have a high threshold for them

[Trix]:

• Not experienced with them, run them at your own risk

Speaks

1. 30 speaks warrants have to be extended for it to be eval’d

2. Speaks are based on round strategy, not speaking style

3. -1 speaks if you are a big school that adds an xyzdocs@gmail.com to the chain

Hello, I am Pooja

I would like to see below:

1. Clarity, stats, and linked points to prove your case.
2. Don't speed and prove case confidently.
3. Conclude your ideas.
4. Extend your case and weigh.

All the very best!

If you're a novice, don't worry about understanding this. Just have fun and do your best :)

Senior and PF captain @ Bronx Science.

smirnovad@bxscience.edu (put me on the email chain)

I will be very unhappy if you do not show up to the round at the check-in time and if you do not show up preflowed.

If you don't cut your cards, I'm capping your speaks at 27 (if you're in novice/JV this doesn't apply to you but please have something your opps can command f).

I don't like spreading but if you do send me a doc. Plz collapse and slow down in the back half.

General

I default to util. If there's no offense I presume 1st. I will always disclose after the round unless the tournament does not allow me to.

Tech > truth > obvious BS. I lean more towards the trad side when it comes to substance: the more obviously improbable it is, the less likely I am to buy it. I'm not opposed to improbable scenarios but if you're choosing to do that, make sure you're actually warranting it out.

Metaweighing is great, do it.

I will be timing your speeches/prep, if you go significantly over it will affect your speaks and I will be annoyed.

Framing/Ks

I'm most familiar with SV framing, identity Ks (fem, asian, afropess, queer), cap and sec. I am less familiar with other/higher literature bases so run at your own risk.

Theory

I honestly just think theory rounds are really boring and I don't enjoy them. That being said, I'm fine with theory rounds where the teams are actually debating (disclosure is good vs. disclosure is bad) rather than the CI being "the shell should apply to everyone except me".

If you're competing at a natcir tournament in varsity, you should be comfortable hitting theory/Ks (to quote Roy Tiefer, don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments).

Things I like: Disclosure, paraphrasing (my threshold for good paraphrasing is much higher if you don't disclose)

Thing I don't like: Friv shells, tricks, misrepresenting/mis-cutting/power-tagging ev

Other things

Dont be rude lol

If you are taking forever to find evidence, your opponents have the right to prep during that time. If it takes a ridiculous amount of time to find one card, it's gonna affect your speaks.

I'm fine with skipping grand if both teams agree -- y'all will get 1 min prep instead.

Don't do any of the -isms. I'll intervene

How to get high speaks:

1. Use Taylor Swift lyrics in your speeches
2. Say "bffr" during probability weighing
3. Bring me skittles
4. Every time you say a turn in rebuttal you have to physically turn

Email: annesmith@lclark.edu.

Experience: Currently, I'm a third year competitor in NFA-LD at Lewis & Clark College. In high school, I did congress, parli and extemp in Southern California.

TL/DR: I like disads, case arguments, probable impacts, and smart analytics. I tend to be less willing to vote on frivolous theory or T and have a higher threshold for K solvency than most judges. I don't like progressive arguments in PF, extemp debate, and big questions. I'm okay with spreading in policy and prog LD.

General: I tend to lean in the direction of tech over truth, but if an argument is super blippy and blatantly factually untrue (eg a one sentence analytic about the sky being green) or I feel that at the end of the round I don't understand it well enough to explain it to another person, I'm not voting for it even if it was conceded. I vote for the winner of key arguments in the round and lean in the direction of preferring the quality of arguments over quantity of arguments.

Speed: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I'm very willing to vote on speed theory if there is a genuine accessibility need (a novice in a collapsed division, disability impacting ability to understand fast speech, etc) or it's a format like PF; otherwise I tend to find "get good" to be a valid response.

In formats were spreading isn't standard practice, I don't have a problem people who talk faster than they would in a normal conversation, as long as a lay person could understand your rate of delivery.

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns (eg. democracy bad, CO2 emissions good), as long as you aren't say, impact turing racism.

Evidence: I care about the quality and relevance of evidence over the quantity. I'm more willing to vote on analytics in evidentiary debate than most judges and I honestly would prefer a good analytic link to a DA or K over a bad generic carded one. I'm willing to vote your opponets down if you call them on egregious powertagging.

Plans and case debate: In formats with plans, I love a good case debate. I will vote on presumption, but like all judges I prefer having some offense to vote on. I'm more willing to buy aff durable fiat arguments (for example, SCOTUS not overturning is part of durable fiat) than most judges. Unless a debater argues otherwise, presumption flips to whoever's advocacy changes the squo the least.

CPs: If you want to read multiple CPs, I prefer quality over quantity. I consider the perm to be a test of competition, rather than an advocacy. I’m more willing than most judges to vote on CP theory (for example, multi-plank CPs bad, PICs bad, no non-topical CPs, etc).

Kritiks: I'm willing to vote on Ks in policy, prog LD, and parli, but I think I'm less inclined to than most. I like it when kritiks have specific links and strong, at least somewhat feasible alternatives. I'm not super familiar with K lit outside of cap, neolib, and SetCol; hence, I appreciate clear and thorough explanations. I'm more willing to vote on no solves, perms, and no links than most judges. I think I’m more likely to vote for anti-K theory (utopian fiat bad, alt vagueness, etc) and perms more than most judges.

I'm not dogmatically opposed to voting on K affs, but I tend to find the standard theory arguments read against them persuasive. If you do read a K aff, I like specific links to the topic and a clear, at least somewhat specific advocacy.

Theory and T: Unless one of the debaters argues otherwise, I default to reasonability, rejecting the team, and voting on potential or proven abuse when evaluating theory and T. I do tend find arguments in favor of only voting on proven abuse convincing. I don’t like voting on most spec, and topicality based on wording technicalities, but sometimes it happens. Trying to win a frivolous theory sheet (for example, if we win our coach will let us go to the beach, e-spec when your opponent specified in cross, etc) in front of me is an uphill battle. I’ll vote on RVIs in very rare circumstances, as long as you explain why the sheet’s unfairness was particularly egregious. I'm less willing to vote on disclosure theory than most, but I'm very willing to consider "this case wasn't disclosed, therefore you should give analytics extra weight" type arguments.

Format specific stuff:

High school LD: I'm okay with plans, CP, spreading, theory, and Ks in LD if both participants in the round are or if you're in a specific prog LD division. In prog LD, I tend to error aff on 1AR theory because of the time trade off. One condo CP is probably fine, anything more than that and I'll find condo bad pretty persuasive.

Talking about philosophy in trad LD is great; just make sure you explain the basics behind the theories you are using (I’m not a philosophy major for a reason). In trad LD, I think it's fine (and strategic) to agree with your opponent's framework if it was basically what you were going to use as framework anyway.

Policy: I’m mostly a policymaker judge. On condo, I'm more likely to side with the neg if they read 1 or 2 condo counter advocacies and more likely to side with the aff if they read a bunch or are super contradictory.

PF: I tend not to like Ks in PF; the speech times are too short. PF was designed to be accessible to lay audiences, so I dislike it when debaters use jargon or speed to exclude opponents, but if you both want to debate that way, I won't penalise you.

Parli:I believe that parli is primarily a debate event about making logical arguments and mostly writing your case in prep. As such, I'm very willing to consider analytics and dislike hyper-generic arguments (generic impact statistics and positions that link to multiple things in the topic area are fine, just don't run a case that would apply to most resolutions). I almost never vote for generic Ks in Parli, especially if they are read by the aff. Topic specific Ks that clearly link are okay. While I get a little annoyed by people abuse Point of Order in the rebuttals, please call POO if it is warranted (I don’t protect the flow unless you call them out). Unless there is a rule against it, tag teaming is totally fine, but I only consider arguments given by the person giving that speech.

Hi! FYO from Blake – did PF for 4 years and Worlds Schools for 3 years

Tldr: tech > truth, weigh, have good evidence.

Put me on the email chain: blakedocs@googlegroups.com

General

If neither teams extend, absent evidence questions, I will presume for the first speaking team – it feels less biased than arbitrarily picking certain skills or behaviors to award.

You can't clear your opponents – they are not obligated to adapt to you. Debaters are free to do whatever they think is most strategic to win the round, whether or not their arguments are comprehensible is up to the judge to decide.

You don't have to ask me to take prep time – just do it plz :/

Things that aren't debatable

Wins + Losses – at the end of the round I will vote for one of the teams.

Speech Times – see NSDA rules

Rebuttal thoughts

Frontline in second rebuttal – if you don't, the first reb is conceded and I will consider any later responses new and won't evaluate.

It seems like some rebuttals like to dump a bunch of blippy and under-warranted analytical responses. If an argument doesn’t have a warrant, I can’t evaluate it – point this out to me and you'll have a much easier job frontlining/backlining.

Defense maybe sticky

Defense isn't sticky if you're using opponent's defense to kick a turn. You can't concede new defense to kick out of turns after your first speech to respond. For example, if someone reads a turn in rebuttal, you frontline it in second rebuttal and it is extended in first summary, you cannot concede defense to kick out of it in second summary. This is true EVEN IF there was defense read that takes out the turn.

Defense isn't sticky if it is poorly responded to but not extended. For example, if someone frontlines their C1 but misses a delink, I won't eval the delink unless it is extended.

Defense is sticky if contention is not addressed at all. If you don’t frontline a contention in second rebuttal, you cannot extend that contention in later speeches, even if the other team doesn’t extend defense to it.

Extensions

Extend Warrants. (saying "Extend the links" doesn't count)

Please collapse the debate in the back half! Ideally, you'll be going for at most 2-3 pieces of offense in summary and 1-2 pieces of offense in final focus

Weighing

Please weigh + answer your opponent's weighing mechs + compare your weighing mechanisms (i.e. metaweighing). I evaluate the weighing debate first, so if you want to pick up my ballot, you should focus your efforts here during the back half.

I won't evaluate new weighing in second final focus, and I generally won't in first final focus. However, I'm a bit more lenient for elaborating on weighing done in first summary in first final focus, just don't read like 3 new weighing mechanisms.

I’ll time speeches. I don’t really care if you go 5-10 seconds over finishing up a response, but I won’t evaluate responses that are started after time is up.

Evidence

Send speech docs. I will boost speaks by .5 for case and rebuttal docs getting sent out.

Please send cut cards! I will cap speaks at 27s if you fail to provide the paragraph that you paraphrase from.

I will only call for evidence a) if I can't vote based on arguments made in round b) someone asks me to call for it. If you paraphrase and the evidence I get is shockingly bad, I will be mad >:(

Progressive arguments

stay clippin

jk don't actually clip – it's against the rules!

I'm going to list my beliefs on theory here, because I think that when it comes to arguments about norm-setting for the activity, my obligation to be "tech" comes second to my obligation to promote education. What this means in practice is that in close theory rounds, I am likely to pick up the team whose practices/behavior aligns with what I believe is good for debate. That said, I'm still willing to listen to theory debates and if the round is an absolute smack down I won't intervene against theory shells I think are unnecessary but not harmful.

paraphrasing is bad. Para good warrants are balls and my threshold for responding to them is quite low.

disclosure is good. OS (tagged and highlighted ev) >>>>>>> full text (no tags or highlights) > first three last three (read OS interps! disclosure nowdays is kinda egregious)

TWs for non-graphic descriptions of violence r bad – the idea that marginalized groups have to ask for permission to talk about oppression, even when their arguments are edited and censored to be non-graphic, is not slay. That said, if you want to run TWs good I will evaluate it and won't intervene against it – again, I'm listing my beliefs here so you're not surprised how my ballot turns out in close/messy rounds.

round reports r unnecessary but I'm willing to eval the theory.

I default to competing interps (risk offense means I'll probably vote on a shell if there's no counter-interp). However, I am sympathetic to reasonability arguments if they are made in round.

Don't push it with theory, I will try my best to be open-minded and not intervene against silly interps (round reports cough cough) but the more you get into the shoes theory, 30 speaker point theory, etc side of things the more likely I am to not evaluate it. Even then, I dislike the trend in the circuit towards weaponizing evidence rules/disclosure practices to punish teams with good practices – to me, there is a qualitative difference between reading disclosure on a team who doesn't disclose and reading open sources on a team who does first three last three. Again, I'm not going to intervene on face if you're reading theory in this vein, just don't go too far down this rabbit hole.

RVIs to para or disco are domeless. I vibe with RVIs: 1) if you're running a ROTB about topical discourse 2) If the theory is obviously friv

I know the very basics of cap and security Ks, if you run anything beyond that make sure to send docs and explain it clearly.

Misc

Time your own prep.

Don't say offensive things! (your classic -isms) If something makes you feel uncomfortable/unsafe in round, please email me or send me a message on Facebook messenger(Elizabeth Terveen)!

People that have informed my thoughts on debate: SOFA and TRONK

Have fun!

Hi! FYO from Blake – did PF for 4 years and Worlds Schools for 3 years

Tldr: tech > truth, weigh, have good evidence.

Put me on the email chain: blakedocs@googlegroups.com

General

If neither teams extend, absent evidence questions, I will presume for the first speaking team – it feels less biased than arbitrarily picking certain skills or behaviors to award.

You can't clear your opponents – they are not obligated to adapt to you. Debaters are free to do whatever they think is most strategic to win the round, whether or not their arguments are comprehensible is up to the judge to decide.

You don't have to ask me to take prep time – just do it plz :/

Things that aren't debatable

Wins + Losses – at the end of the round I will vote for one of the teams.

Speech Times – see NSDA rules

Rebuttal thoughts

Frontline in second rebuttal – if you don't, the first reb is conceded and I will consider any later responses new and won't evaluate.

It seems like some rebuttals like to dump a bunch of blippy and under-warranted analytical responses. If an argument doesn’t have a warrant, I can’t evaluate it – point this out to me and you'll have a much easier job frontlining/backlining.

Defense maybe sticky

Defense isn't sticky if you're using opponent's defense to kick a turn. You can't concede new defense to kick out of turns after your first speech to respond. For example, if someone reads a turn in rebuttal, you frontline it in second rebuttal and it is extended in first summary, you cannot concede defense to kick out of it in second summary. This is true EVEN IF there was defense read that takes out the turn.

Defense isn't sticky if it is poorly responded to but not extended. For example, if someone frontlines their C1 but misses a delink, I won't eval the delink unless it is extended.

Defense is sticky if contention is not addressed at all. If you don’t frontline a contention in second rebuttal, you cannot extend that contention in later speeches, even if the other team doesn’t extend defense to it.

Extensions

Extend Warrants. (saying "Extend the links" doesn't count)

Please collapse the debate in the back half! Ideally, you'll be going for at most 2-3 pieces of offense in summary and 1-2 pieces of offense in final focus

Weighing

Please weigh + answer your opponent's weighing mechs + compare your weighing mechanisms (i.e. metaweighing). I evaluate the weighing debate first, so if you want to pick up my ballot, you should focus your efforts here during the back half.

I won't evaluate new weighing in second final focus, and I generally won't in first final focus. However, I'm a bit more lenient for elaborating on weighing done in first summary in first final focus, just don't read like 3 new weighing mechanisms.

I’ll time speeches. I don’t really care if you go 5-10 seconds over finishing up a response, but I won’t evaluate responses that are started after time is up.

Evidence

Send speech docs. I will boost speaks by .5 for case and rebuttal docs getting sent out.

Please send cut cards! I will cap speaks at 27s if you fail to provide the paragraph that you paraphrase from.

I will only call for evidence a) if I can't vote based on arguments made in round b) someone asks me to call for it. If you paraphrase and the evidence I get is shockingly bad, I will be mad >:(

Progressive arguments

stay clippin

jk don't actually clip – it's against the rules!

I'm going to list my beliefs on theory here, because I think that when it comes to arguments about norm-setting for the activity, my obligation to be "tech" comes second to my obligation to promote education. What this means in practice is that in close theory rounds, I am likely to pick up the team whose practices/behavior aligns with what I believe is good for debate. That said, I'm still willing to listen to theory debates and if the round is an absolute smack down I won't intervene against theory shells I think are unnecessary but not harmful.

paraphrasing is bad. Para good warrants are balls and my threshold for responding to them is quite low.

disclosure is good. OS (tagged and highlighted ev) >>>>>>> full text (no tags or highlights) > first three last three (read OS interps! disclosure nowdays is kinda egregious)

TWs for non-graphic descriptions of violence r bad – the idea that marginalized groups have to ask for permission to talk about oppression, even when their arguments are edited and censored to be non-graphic, is not slay. That said, if you want to run TWs good I will evaluate it and won't intervene against it – again, I'm listing my beliefs here so you're not surprised how my ballot turns out in close/messy rounds.

round reports r unnecessary but I'm willing to eval the theory.

I default to competing interps (risk offense means I'll probably vote on a shell if there's no counter-interp). However, I am sympathetic to reasonability arguments if they are made in round.

Don't push it with theory, I will try my best to be open-minded and not intervene against silly interps (round reports cough cough) but the more you get into the shoes theory, 30 speaker point theory, etc side of things the more likely I am to not evaluate it. Even then, I dislike the trend in the circuit towards weaponizing evidence rules/disclosure practices to punish teams with good practices – to me, there is a qualitative difference between reading disclosure on a team who doesn't disclose and reading open sources on a team who does first three last three. Again, I'm not going to intervene on face if you're reading theory in this vein, just don't go too far down this rabbit hole.

RVIs to para or disco are domeless. I vibe with RVIs: 1) if you're running a ROTB about topical discourse 2) If the theory is obviously friv

I know the very basics of cap and security Ks, if you run anything beyond that make sure to send docs and explain it clearly.

Misc

Time your own prep.

Don't say offensive things! (your classic -isms) If something makes you feel uncomfortable/unsafe in round, please email me or send me a message on Facebook messenger(Elizabeth Terveen)!

People that have informed my thoughts on debate: SOFA and TRONK

Have fun!

Hello debaters and enthusiasts!

I am a parent judge and love a good debate. When I judge, I am looking for clarity (be slow, and emphasize the important words/points) and a chain of thought that has a beginning and an end.. think of it like a train leaving a station and arriving on one. No one wants to end up in a train that leaves a station and doesn't arrive anywhere! Always, always have clear conclusions and try to tie them to how you began.

Good debate skills will help you for the rest of your lives.. more than math (don't tell this to your math teacher or your parents! And hope my kids don't read this). Trust me.

All the best and and go and speak clearly and loudly.

I'm currently in my fourth year of PF at cary, email for chains is ella_zhang@caryacademy.org.

Tech>truth run whatever you want

Responsiveness: go line-by-line and interact with your opponent's arguments. second rebuttal answers first rebuttal. signpost please!

Weighing: give me all the voters and tell me why you win. terminalize your impacts!! comparative weighing is super important. the earlier it's done, the better.

Extensions: extend links and impacts into summary and final focus. please please collapse in summary. if you are going for a turn implicate and weigh it.

Evidence: paraphrasing is fine, but send cut cards if evidence is called. do not spend 10 minutes finding evidence.

Progressive debate: i can vote off of any prog except for tricks cause i don't get them. i've run k's (fem killjoy, yellow fever, fem IR.), theory (para, disclo, friv), ivi's, and other non-T args, so i probs can evaluate it. "idk how to respond" is not a valid response in a varsity tournament. i'm unlikely to vote for TW theory and i like identity k's but have a pretty high threshold for how they should be run.

Speed is fine but send speech docs if you're gonna spread.

Welcome to my angry rant!....I mean, my paradigm!

(don’t worry, I am nicer in my RFD).

I have 5 years experience in World Schools and Public Forum Debate. Flay for policy.

I hold debaters accountable for Public Forum’s original purpose- which is to communicate to the public*. I am not a lay judge, but if a layman couldn't at least understand you, you are defeating the purpose of public forum and you should be in policy instead.

tabula rasa, but don't overdo it. You don't need to define "the" for me :P.

I love kritiks when used sincerely, but not when they are used frivolously.

Substance over theory, forever and always. I despise theory (except topicality). If you use theory, you better have a GOOD reason and address a REAL issue, because it will not impress me as a default strategy. Theory was designed to keep debate fair...so don't be like rain on your wedding day (ironic...Alanis Morissette...no one?) and use it abusively.

There is nothing I hate more than a petty theory debate with no substance....but spreading is a close second. If a teacher assigned you a 2 page paper and you used 1pt font to get as much info in as possible while also hoping the teacher didn't catch your mistakes, you wouldn't get away with it. Spreading is no different. The assignment is to convey your message to the public as persuasively as you can in 4 minutes. I consider spreading to be like using 1pt font: cheating. Not to mention that spreading is SUPER elitist to ESL debaters.

Truth over tech, sorry not sorry. It’s not because I am lay, its because I am allergic to kool-aid and won’t drink it. I still hold you accountable to technical aspects of debate, but not if tech isn't supporting truth. I don't care if you memorize more jargon than your opponent, I care if you have better arguments. Impressive impacts with strong links win.

Framework should not be neglected!!!!

---------------Advice for my victims....I mean, competitors--------------------------------------------

I have a tendency to favor global impacts over domestic, and I am a sucker for strong logic based on economics. Please remember- the United States is NOT the world, and the values of the United States are NOT universal. If your opponents make assumptions, point them out to me.

Don't assume I am a liberal- if you want to argue that republicans are inherently bad, you need to prove it.

Don't collapse on a good argument for the sake of collapsing. It might take 5 seconds out of your summary speech to keep a contention in play that could save your whole round.

Don't focus on niche issues when your opponents' impact effects the whole world.

Real world impacts are more impressive to me than theoretical ones. Don't tell me something is going to lead to nuclear war unless you really can prove it. -_- Links or its fake.

If you are going to use climate change as your impact, you better be able to prove uniqueness.

I have a pet peeve for arguments that falsely equate correlation with causation. If your opponent calls you out on this correctly....-_-

Don't give me a false dilemma. Don't strawman. Don't be dumb. Don't be tricky. Just do your research.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS.