Hey, I'm Ebenezer Appiah, I go by he/him/his pronouns and I competed for Alief Elsik School School from 2019-2023 where I had a couple of standout achievements World Schools wise.

TL;DR: I vote on the best remaining offensive material at the level at which it is proven. Typically this just means choosing the clash/material you are winning and using existing and (sufficient) warranting to access an impact that you can realistically weigh out your opponent with. If you prove your argument at the specific level at which you want it to operate ur chillin. I almost always auto-70 a speech that lacks terminal argument development so doing this will for sure raise speaks even if you lose the round.

Things that make my job hard:

• Debating on margins (restrictive definitions, abusive framing)
• Not being comparative and charitable to your opponents
• Not proving your arguments (I don't buy things in a vacuum - reasons must be explicit and proven to a point where they meet some burden(s) of proof)

In framing debates, I expect warranted reasons for why I should prefer one interpretation over another. If the debate comes down to two ships sailing in the night I can't resolve it without intervening. For the sake of a clean round and the least intervening decision possible, I highly recommend you do this

In debates where things are not explicitly proven, I'll assume the most relevant arguments for both sides are true and make the comparison of what argument wins (pre-requisite, scale of impact, duration of impact, etc.)

Things that make my job easy:

• Identifying the clashing material of the debate and weighing between and within those areas.
• Weighing the framing of arguments and clash on a meta-level (things independent of rebuttal e.g. the role of the argument, why I should prefer a specific type of argument as opposed to another)
• Weigh the mechs/warrants behind the argument - tell me why your reasons matter more/ are more likely to occur in contrast to your opposition, especially in debates where there are shared impacts which tends to happen a lot
• Weigh impacts if they are differentiated. Note that weighing at the impact level must concede the warrant level (so the argument does happen) and instead engage in the end result of the argument. Rarely do I see impact weighing or even link/warrant level weighing, instead I tend to see rebuttal on the warrant level (often not sufficient enough rebuttal) and neglect for the impact level.
• Be strategic. I'd likely caution against extending an unwarranted framing debate for example especially when there are far better ways to allocate time in terms of forwarding arguments, making good weighing, even-if statements, or just biting the bullet and engaging. More times than not if the framing is that left field, I'll buy the ref as soon as it is introduced in the round. It doesn't matter if your opponent sticks to a bad framework if I not leaning toward it. Don't overcompensate! Good judge instruction and being explicit from the onset will be more than enough to sway me in favor of your side.
• General rule of thumb: always fill in gaps for why and how something happens. I must know why a claim is true, why it is exclusive to your side, and quantifiably why that thing is good or bad or morally why that thing is good or bad.

A combination of the stuff mentioned above is the best way to get a decision you agree with. A lack of these things will result in a level of intervention that we all never like but is necessary if the work isn't done in round

I'm not at all authoritarian when it comes to style. As a competitor who spoke a bit quicker than the norm in WSD, I understand how an overbearing focus on style can have an unattended effect of discrediting good argumentation. If I can flow it and you signpost, you'll do fine. Arg quality> rhetoric. Ideally, the best speeches have all three, but my pivot is more toward content and strategy.

Principled arguments are fun to see but they need to be both extended and weighed against the practical otherwise I’ll have a spot on my flow of a principle that may have been well established but was poorly leveraged against other arguments. Another thing principle-wise, if the principle stops at proving a moral benefit of the motion without prescribing the moral necessity of the motion, I’m probably not going to buy it because that’s just a utilitarian argument in disguise. The principle needs to set a framework for moral evaluation and then explain why violating that framework produces moral injury.

All and all, trust yourself, debate well, and have fun!

If you have questions you can reach me at ebenezer.g.appiah@gmail.com or eappiah@regis.edu

Southlake Carroll '22, UTD '26

nehapaulina04@gmail.com (put me on the chain please! and reach out to me if you have any questions/concerns/literally anything)

Background: Hi! I'm Neha. I debated for Southlake Carroll for 5 years, 3 in PF and 2 in worlds. In worlds, I did the ¼ and 3 and I won TFA state in 2021. In PF, I qualified for TFA state in my freshman and sophomore years and I broke at a few bid tournaments. I’ve been judging a mix of PF and WSD ever since I graduated. Some of my friends whose paradigms I generally agree with are Sanjay Shori, Shabbir Bohri, Jay Namdhari, and Neel Kanamangala.

TLDR; tech > truth, down for anything that isn't offensive/exclusionary

My view on debate: To steal a quote from Shabbir, "debate is a game, you make the rules, i attempt to make the least biased decision possible based off those rules." My paradigm is simply a list of preferences, and preferences can be overridden by good debating. You have the freedom to run whatever argument you want and I will do my best to judge it fairly. However, the ONLY exceptions to that are arguments that are morally irrepressible. Debate should be a safe space for everyone. I have 0 problem dropping you if you or your argument are exclusionary - including, but not limited to, sexism, homophobia, racism, purposely misgendering, etc. I promise you it's not hard to not be a jerk.

I flip a coin for presumption, heads is aff/prop tails is neg/opp. Feel free to make arguments otherwise. If you're questioning whether to send a doc, err on the side of yes - I reserve the right to ask for one.

Things that matter for both PF and Worlds: I couldn’t care less about what you wear or whether you sit or stand, please do whatever makes you feel the most comfortable. Tech > truth but my threshold for tech decreases the more you forgo truth. In simpler terms, run whatever argument you want, but the more ridiculous it is, the more I’m willing to buy responses to that argument. Speaks: I think speaker points are a really dumb system ESPECIALLY in WSD. so I'm pretty generous on these, as long as you don't annoy me you'll be fine. Auto 30s if it's a bubble round but only in PF, sorry WSDers but speaks inflation is just not as common in this event :(.if you make a joke about/somehow make fun of anbu subramanian: for pfers, auto 30. for wsders, +1 speaker point

I don't necessarily need a trigger warning for suicide-related arguments but please be respectful when talking about that topic.

-WSD-

Given that my background is in PF, I am 100% more tech than your average worlds judge. This could either be a good or bad thing for you.

Content: Like I mentioned earlier, I’m tech > truth, so feel free to run whatever argument you want as long as it’s well-warranted. This is a hot worlds take but I strongly believe and will die on the hill that principle arguments are outweighed by the practical 100% of the time. That being said I won't be biased against them (I know especially for impromptu it can be hard to think of another argument) and I'll evaluate them just like any other argument, but if you want me to vote on the principle you have to weigh unless there's no other offense to vote off. If I'm given 2 competing arguments and no weighing then I default practical > principal. Worlds arguments are stock and repetitive 90% of the time, so I absolutely love seeing unique strats/cases.

Strategy: This is the aspect of the debate I pay the most attention to since at the end of the day, I am a flow judge and whoever wins on the flow wins the round. I absolutely love seeing weighing, I think it’s a really important aspect of debate that a lot of WSDers ignore. If you win the weighing, and you win your link into the weighing, you win the round. Please be comparative to your opponent’s specific arguments instead of just repeating yours over and over. I also love it when teams make a clear worlds comparison analysis.Please, for the love of god, resolve model debates by being comparative and giving me actual argumentation rather than just repeating "tHeIr mOdEl iS aBuSiVe" over and over.

Style: To be quite honest, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that any respectable form of debate would have style make up 40% of the decision. For me, content and strategy will always be significantly more important than style, so don't try to win the round by neglecting arguments in favor of a performance. That being said, I do appreciate humor and seeing your personality in the speech, as long as you don’t hurt anyone’s feelings. The main way I award style points is by how organized and easy to flow your speeches are. I genuinely don’t understand why this activity is so bad at signposting, please tell me where you are on the flow or else I won’t know what to do with your argument.

-PF-

It’s been a while since I’ve been involved in PF, so you’d probably best classify me as a flay judge. While I’m not up-to-date on the topic, I catch on to arguments pretty quickly. I can keep up with some speed but if you’re planning on going >200wpm, please send a doc!!

**If I'm judging you in novice: Don't worry about reading this closely at all, I don't expect novices to know the ins and outs of technical debate and will judge accordingly. I will not hold you to the same expectations as varsity, so please feel free to debate in whatever style you like instead of worrying about technicalities just to adapt to me :)

Substance: No new frontlines to any responses from first rebuttal and no new defense in second summary. If you don’t give me a full extension of offense in summary AND final focus (full extension = uq, link, internal link, impact) I’m probably not voting on it. I'm ok with giving novices leeway on this but if I'm judging you in varsity then no excuses. Disads/offensive overviews are fine in first rebuttal but not second. No sticky defense. No new arguments (including weighing unless there's literally no other weighing in the round) in final focus.

Cross: I can’t even put into words how much I don’t care about cross. I’m not voting off anything in cross so if anything important was said, it needs to be in a speech. Please feel free to use cross for prep if you want (#abolishgrandcross), however if you choose to do it, whatever you say is binding.

Progressive: I think progressive arguments have a place in PF, but tbh I'm probably not a good judge for it. I will not accept “bUt tHiS iS pF" as a response unless your opponent straight up drops it. If you're reading multiple off-case arguments please make it clear when you're going from one to the next.

Theory: I’m most familiar with basic theory shells such as disclosure, paraphrase, etc, but you would make my life 10x easier if you ran them in shell format. I default drop the debater (except on T where I default drop the argument), competing interps, and no RVIs, but if you can’t read and warrant paradigm issues you’re getting 20s. I'm ok with blippy shell extensions in the back half of the round. If you're planning on running a more complex shell then please slow down and overexplain it. Please clearly delineate between the different parts of the shell. I'm not up-to-date enough on current pf norms to have many set beliefs, but I do strongly believe that disclosure is good and less strongly that paraphrasing is usually bad. This is not to say you can't win against these shells with me as a judge, but it might be an uphill battle.

Kritiks: A lot of Ks in PF are bad. Your alt needs to solve. I have a very basic understanding of basic Ks so you should definitely really overexplain (especially high theory and non-T/performance Ks) and send me a doc. If you read a floating PIK in PF i’m dropping your speaks. ROTB is fine as long as you run it properly. Perfcons on both theory and Ks are very persuasive. Dumb rhetoric on T-FW like saying it’s violent will annoy me.

Everything else: run them at your own risk just please overexplain

Evidence and Prep: I expect all evidence to be sent cut w/ tags. If it takes you more than 2 minutes to send evidence after your opponent calls for it, I'll start docking your speaks. I will read all evidence sent on the chain, and will ask to see any other cards only if I am explicitly told to do so. please extend ev by author name/year AND what the card said! I try my best to write down all author names but if you're going too fast I won't be able to catch everything (hint: you can avoid this issue by sending a doc!). I don't like evidence debates but I understand they happen a lot in PF - indicts are fine but I would much rather hear defense. Flex prep is fine. I won't time your prep but I will not be lenient on any instances of obvious prep stealing.

Conclusion: While I have a special place in my heart for this activity, debate is super stressful and toxic, so please try to and do whatever you can that makes sure you have fun, because if you're not then there really is no point :) and finally, as the great aamir mohsin once said, "call me sticky cause I'm always posted" (I'm ngl idk what that means)

Speech - Organized arguments, credible sources, practical solutions, relatability is probably the biggest thing for me. I love speeches where personalities show through and I can see how you are as a person.

Interp - Relatable pieces with big, distinguishable characters.

WSD - I want a conversational round with a crystallization of points at the end. Clear voters are always the way to go. POIs should be addressed consistently however not everyone needs to be taken.

Kinkaid ‘23 Georgetown ‘27

Hi, I am Alexander Farahbod, I debated for The Kinkaid School in Houston for 3 years competing primarily in WSD, and am currently a disruptor in the tech industry. I specialize in advocating for Pluto’s reinclusion into the planetary list.

General Paradigm

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

Stick to the basics

Oftentimes, people get lost in the weeds of debate land and forget the basic style of argumentation.

BE COMPARATIVE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

If there is one thing to take from my paradigm, it's this. Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world. Explaining this clearly is such an essential part of good debates; this needs to be a priority in all speeches.

Speed

This is not a formula one race; you are not Max Verstappen; please slow down.

Clash

Do it. It's never fun to watch a debate over the framework where whatever interpretation I buy automatically wins the round. Attempt to resolve FW disputes early to get to the content/heart of the debate as quickly as possible.

General Argumentation

I highly value different types of principles or arguments that aren't necessarily “common” but instead are creative enough that they make the round different and interesting. Please be creative—pretend this is your final project of your art major—you need creativity.

Have Fun

As a debater, I used to have a visceral reaction when I read “Have fun!” in paradigms because I thought debate was only fun if I won. Please try to ahve fun and learn from the experience in round even if you do not win!

WSD Technical Paradigm

___________________________

Style Notes

Style may be only 20 percent of the ballot officially, but in my heart, it's more than that. The joy that courses through my cerebral cortex from the influx of dopamine when I hear a funny one-liner or flowery rhetoric is unparalleled. I live for this hit of dopamine.

Strategy

In my opinion, strategy breaks down into two things, First is team cohesion which is having a common theme and narrative throughout all 4 speeches. Being on the same page in terms of how you explain/extend arguments is also extremely underrated in WSD and makes your team appear significantly stronger. Second is smart collapses into the 3s and replies. Making sure you're identifying your strongest path to the ballot and capitalizing on it is also an essential part of team strategy.

Content

I will vote on the least mitigated claim warrant data and impact that is extended down the bench.

One thing I have noticed in Worlds is that debaters tend to agree with impacts like climate change being necessary and just completely concede the impact level so they can fight over the link level. With that being said, fighting over the impact level is something you should be doing frequently and something I will reward as a judge.

I value organized speeches!!! Messy speeches = sad Farahbod = under 70 speaks. Ways to make sure your speech is organized: first enumerate your responses; second signpost your arguments; and third condense into clash points.

I would MUCH rather vote on offensive over defensive arguments. Please have offense. I want to vote on your argument's impact!!!

Principle debates: If it becomes a practical v. principle debate, I'm expecting A LOT of weighing and why the principle outweighs practical or vice versa. I'm also in the camp that principle almost always needs some kind of impact (although it doesn't necessarily need to be utilitarian). For instance, if you're running a principle of democracy, your impact should be... democracy (surprise!—ik that Georgetown education pulling through). I love creative principles and creative impacts here.

Model debates: Both models and countermodels need to be characterized from the start. Teams should tell me how they're mechanized, what the incentives are for key actors, and how the model might interact with key stakeholders. Prop should fully articulate how they get offense from the model (this is where I usually see prop fail). Opp's countermodel should articulate how it's mutually exclusive from the prop model AND why it is preferable.

If the debate becomes when it is or isn't appropriate to have a model, teams need to establish first what in the wording of the motion grants you a model and second why the model is goldilocks for grounds to debate (why it's not too specific/narrow of a model and why it's not too broad). Regardless of what my thoughts are for what's the most strategic way to interpret the motion, I will defer to the arguments made in-round on this question.

Please add me to the email chain: valeriegutierrez491@gmail.com I'd prefer an email chain over speech drop.

I recently graduated with a BA in political science and Latin American and border studies. As a debater, I went to a small school in Dallas and made it to outrounds at a couple TFA/NSDA tournaments in policy and LD. I am now the co-head coach at Irma Rangel YWLS along with Kris Wright.

TLDR:

I will evaluate any argument in the round, meaning you should take the notes below as standards that I tend to learn towards in debate, and possible ways to heighten a strat, instead of it limiting what type of arguments you go for in a round. If you go for 14 off is good and win that debate, even if I don't think that's a good model of debate, I will still vote for that regardless of my personal beliefs.

General notes:

• Please don’t abbreviate topic-specific terms, I don't judge every topic and I probably won't know what you mean.

• I’m very persuaded by an overview or a story of the link chain.

• Simply saying they dropped something without explaining the impact of the dropped arg won't get you far. Same as "extend __ arg." I grant you some leeway with the extensions but you still have to implicate the effects it has on the round and/or under a fw.

Logistics:

Speed - I don't have an issue with spreading, but be clear. (Read the T/Theory above for specifics here). Except if we're in outrounds (Policy), slow down. I'll say clear once to let you know I can’t understand. Ultimately, not being clear results in me having to stop flowing because I can't understand. Please don't put yourself in the position of not having a certain ballot from me because of lack of clarity.

Timing- if you prep while they're sending docs (during non-prep time), I will ask you to stop. If I have to repeat, I'll dock speaks for the sake of fairness.

In case you have questions about a specific type of argument:

WSD - Please give a roadmap or some form of signposting. You cannot ask POIs during protected time which is the first and last minute of the first three speeches. Also, no follow up questions in WS are allowed. I think often debaters lack weighing under the framework, please do this weighing and comparative work of impacts, or reasons to prefer your side of the motion.

Framework - I have no predisposition about what the framework of a debate should be, however, (aside from t/theory, or nontraditional K/performance debates in policy and LD) I weigh framework as the highest layer in a debate. I think that some variation of a complete fw debate articulates what the fw means, how the impacts in the round are weighed under the fw and why your fw comes first. If I'm unsure how to weigh these, I'll try to minimize intervention as much as possible. Winning the framework/role of the ballot is not a reason alone to win a round- you should explain how your form of debate and/or impact scenario comes first in accordance with the winning framework.

Policy- if you’re doing traditional policy debate, I believe the aff has to defend the resolution/prove its desirability. As a neg I believe that you get to test the competitiveness of the aff and/or negate the resolution. Just be reasonable here. This allows you to run disasds and cps/pics, but please make it clear what the competition is and how it functions, whether that be the DA or independent offensive arguments.Even if an impact outweighs there still has to be a clear link story as to how an advocacy causes/solves that impact.

Criticisms - know what the alt and story of the K is. Re-reading tags and simply extending cards will not work for me. Tell me what the alt means and how the criticism links. Most importantly, tell me how the alt solves your criticism.

Performance - The performance needs to function as offense in the debate, especially how it functions under a rob/fw. If you perform in the 1AC or 1NC, and don't do it in the following speeches, I will likely not be as persuaded by any real offense coming from the performance of your speech.

Theory/ T - I am least comfortable judging a theory/T round. With that being said, if you run theory you should have a complete shell (interp, violation, standards and voters), a clear violation and abuse story. I am not compelled by frivolous theory and I usually tend to lean towards a reasonability claim if made.

hi guys, i know im a little late on this. im currently studying at the university of houston, class of 2026! i have some experience with speech in debate, so i like to judge on my free time. i take some time with my feedback (written), so my deepest apologies if it's not available right away.

im fairly new at this, so it is greatly appreciated when the motion is clearly stated as well as your substantials.

i don't mind if you speak fast because i know you guys are under a timer, but if you speak too fast to the point where i cannot understand, it will cost you speaker points.

my decision will be based on who i think best delivered their argument and supporting information. same for non-debate competitors, my decision will be based on your ability to deliver your speech. imo, these decisions are very subjective.

i wish you guys the best of luck, and hope my decisions and feedback help you guys out.

happy holidays :)

Paradigm Updated 3/9/25

I have been judging debate for 30 years, and I find it consistently disturbing that our community rewards debaters who try to manipulate a win rather than earning one. If you are attempting to beat your opponents through flow tricks they are unfamiliar with, speed beyond their threshold, or theory and kritiks that hold no meaningful value to you other than a win, I have serious doubts about your respect for the other participants in the debate space. The debate space must be consensual. Debaters enter into the space with the assumption that they have a 50-50 chance of winning, and that they will have equal space to present their arguments and have them legitimately considered by their judges. Judges enter into the space with the assumption that the debaters will attempt to win their ballots rather than exclude them from the round. Speaking faster than an opposing debater or judge is comfortable with is nonconsensual behavior. That's problematic. Making arguments that do not include a warrant, are presented as absolutes that cannot be opposed, and/or cannot be compared to opposing arguments that have equal ground is a strange approach to an activity where judges attempt to make a meaningful choice between two competing claims. Using your knowledge of current debate fads to intimidate your opponents and police their rhetoric and strategy by telling them how they can and cannot respond to you is a) nonconsensual, b) bullying, and c) pretty lame. I understand that organizing arguments into shells can make it easier to follow along. However, using shells as a tool of silencing the other team and not giving them equal space to present their opinion is... c'mon, do I have to say this again? It's nonconsensual. Judges, coaches, debaters - I implore all of you to stop normalizing teenagers acting in nonconsensual ways. It makes the debate space combative and exclusionary, it promotes patriarchal thinking that is never a good idea, and it just makes for blippy, messy, unpleasant debate rounds. Do better. If you come at me with your arguments about tech>truth being more "objective" and leading to less "intervention" I will happily laugh in your face for thirty minutes. There is no such thing as an objective way to choose a winner. There is no such thing as a debate round where a judge does not, at some level, make personal choices about what rhetoric and strategy they valued. The entire glorification of the flow as some 'objective' sacred text is deeply rooted in patriarchal assumptions and preferences, and I like to think that as critical thinkers we can go beyond that as a community. If you want to play a game because winning makes you feel less insecure, go play online poker. If you want to challenge yourself, compare yourself against other worthy opponents, learn something new every round, become a better human, and change the world - stay in speech and debate. Thank you for attending my lecture, and read on for additional paradigm information.

ALL DEBATE: Welcome to my ten second tutorial, 'Answering Arguments Wins Debates.' Notice I didn't say 'repeating arguments wins debates,' because it doesn't. You have to listen to your opponent's argument, then craft a response that shows why your side of the resolution is comparatively better regarding this issue. Telling me their argument isn't well-warranted isn't enough. You have to provide me with a warrant for why your side of the debate wins that point.

**PLEASE DO NOT SPEAK IMPOSSIBLY FAST. If you’re talking like you’ve had too many Dr. Peppers, we’re fine, but if you blur words together and start double breathing, I can’t understand you. Not only is that a consent issue, it's a disability issue. A decade ago I experienced a bipolar break, and since then my brain doesn't work as fast, and my ear-to-brain interaction isn't what it used to be. That doesn't mean I am stupid. It just means that I need to hear things at a normal, conversational speed. I also feel you should check with your opponent and judges before EVERY round to discuss what their threshold for speed is to make sure you are all on the same page and that the debate space is inclusive. That’s key to keeping people in this activity. Please don’t chase out people who can only compete sometimes. Be better.

GENERAL ARGUMENTS: I will consider anything that isn't offensive, but you have to give me a reasonable explanation for why it applies in this debate. If you're trying to make an argument based on debate jargon explain it to me. Just because you think you sound cool saying something doesn't mean I am going to vote on it. I do not vote off tricks on the flow. Not every dropped argument actually matters. On the flipside, don't ignore arguments. LISTEN to your opponent. Respond to them.

THEORY: I am open to any theory arguments critiquing your opponent’s rhetoric, behavior, or advocacy. I am NOT open to resolutional critiques, because in that instance you’re basically critiquing the wording committee. We have to have an agreed upon resolution to have a fair debate. It may not be your favorite resolution. It may not be my favorite resolution, either. However, it’s the resolution we’ve all walked into the round to engage with, so do me a solid and actually engage with it. I previously bought disclosure theory at national tournaments, but in updating my paradigm today I feel it's incompatible with an inclusive, consensual debate space. If you believe strongly that debaters should disclose, you should come to the room (physical or online) immediately after posting to make a good faith attempt to discuss arguments with your opponent. Breezing on in at the start time and reading theory tells me you care more about an easy win than fair debate prep.

WEIGHING: I don’t need you to use the words probability, timeframe, reversibility, etc. So long as you compare your argument with your opponent’s and tell me why your argument makes your world comparatively better than theirs, I’m good.

BEHAVIOR: Be respectful of me and of your opponent. If I am cringing by how rude you are in CX, you won't be getting high speaks. I don't vote for bullies. I vote for debaters. If you have questions about how to get better after the round, you can ask me. If you want to re-debate the round, I will not be tolerant. You had a chance to communicate to me, and if you lost, you lost. I am not going to change my mind, and arguing with me will just mean I will be in a bad mood if I ever have to judge you again. I judge often enough you want to be the person I smile when I see.

EVENT SPECIFIC PARADIGMS**

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE: Firstly, although I have judged this event for five years or so, I am not necessarily aware of every norm in the activity. If you feel your opponent is using debate norms from other events and they aren’t in line with world norms, tell me why their position should be disregarded. Secondly, I like to see a lot of worlds comparison in either the 3^rd or Final speech. What happens if we pass the motion? What happens if we fail it? What are the implications of that action across broader populations and through time? Especially with impromptu topics, I think it’s important to figure out what the effects are of voting either way. I’m not going to want to make a decision about a subset of the motion taken in one snapshot in time. I want to look at precedents the motion might start, or how the motion may change perceptions across the globe. Think BIG. Thirdly, don’t ask incredibly long POI’s just to waste opponent time. Your POI’s should be strategic in terms of their content.

PUBLIC FORUM: Firstly, do not make arguments in cross. Ask questions of your opponent. Weaken their link chains, make them explain warrants and evidence. Please let your opponent have a reasonable amount of time to answer, and only interrupt if they are being purposefully obtuse. Take turns asking. If you have a follow-up, it should be able to be answered with one sentence, or it is a second question. Secondly, I do not believe that policy and LD norms automatically apply in PF rounds. If you would like to access another debate event’s norms, you need to give me a reasonable explanation as to why your interpretation is best. Thirdly, I like to see incentive analysis done that helps me to see why certain policies might be preferred over others. This can be from a government perspective, a societal perspective, or even individual perspectives, depending on the argument. Fourthly, you have to give me more than the argument name to count as an extension, and arguments should be extended in every speech if they end up in Final Focus. Give me the evidence, the warrant, the way that argument outweighs the opponent’s argument – I’m flexible, but give me something to extend other than a word. Fifthly, be realistic about what you can do in a four minute constructive. You will not be able to go into massive depth with any of your arguments. Low probability, high impact arguments require a pretty strong link chain, and that’s probably not something you have time for in PF. Stick with what you can defend. Then defend it. Sixthly, be smart about evidence sharing. Have your evidence immediately accessible and shareable. Better yet, send the cards either right before or right after the speech so everyone can see them. I do not want to have to police both teams while searching and copying and pasting and refreshing emails. I also really, really do not want to see teams using evidence challenge as a way to get more time to mentally prep. PF debate should not take a lifetime. It should take less than an hour.

LD: I’m not judging much LD anymore because the activity is becoming less enjoyable for me. I’m not a tech happy judge, and I won’t vote on flow tricks. I will vote on comparative benefit in the overall aff and neg position. I would prefer you take prep time before the NC so that you are responsive to your opponent’s rhetoric and arguments. If your entire NC is cards that you don’t bother applying directly to opponent arguments, I’m probably not going to vote for you. Clash is key, and clash requires being in the moment of this particular debate with these particular people. Every debate should be different. If you’re making them all the same, you’re probably going to get the L from me every time, too.

POLICY: I judge policy only when tabrooms really, really need me to, or for UIL Texas debate where speed is not the norm. I recognize that on most circuits, speed is the norm, and I simply can’t keep up. If tab needs me to take one for the team, though, please respect my speed issues above. Also, I don’t understand all of the intricacies of policy debate norms, so if you want me to judge off something more obscure, explain it to me. My favorite thing in Policy to hear about is the solvency debate, so points there if you dig in deep.

To finish it off, this activity should be something all of us enjoy. If you’re miserable during the round, we probably will be, too. Find a way to make each debate interesting, unique, challenging. Stretch your world, and make your opponents and judges think in new ways. Being in debate should inspire you. If it doesn’t, there’s probably a better activity for you, and I hope you can find that joy elsewhere. We’re all spending a day or weekend together, so let’s all try to make it pleasant.

Debate:

I want a clean debate, no spreading at all. Please make sure to speak clearly and slowly.
If a debater asks for evidence, show me the evidence as well so I can cross-verify.
No crazy arguments or defending clearly bad viewpoints, I will probably down you if you do so.

Speech:

Speak clearly, I must be able to understand you.
I do think that body language is also a key part of speaking, so keep that in mind when giving your speech.
Don't go too over the top with emphasis, but don't be dull and boring either. Use the right amount of inflection.

If I'm judging a limited-prep event (Exempt/Impromptu), please give me the topic that you have before speaking, and time yourselves please.

If I'm judging any other speech event, please give me the title of your speech before speaking.

Congress:

11/22-11/23 (Big Cat only): I have never judged congress before, but I am registered for this event as per judging obligations. I am trying to learn how congress works, but if I am in your chamber (especially if you are the PO), please help me out as much as possible so I can do my best to judge everyone fairly.

I should be treated as a lay judge, but I have judged a few WSD, LD, and PF rounds. I am a parent but I have judged tournaments before a few times. Be respectful and try your best and you will do well.

Overall Notes

Please speak at an understandable and coherent speed, if I cannot follow along with what you are saying I will not be able to write down your arguments. Ensure you go at a moderate pace, not just barely slow enough to be understood. Additionally, make sure your arguments are understandable for the average person that has not done extensive research on your topic. Finally, complex jargon will likely go over my head because I have not judged this activity or a specialized event.

For all events

Please speak clearly and at a moderate speed, if I cannot hear or understand argument or point you make it may not be taken into consideration.Also, I want to see engagement from everyone participating, enjoy your performances and I will enjoy them more.

Debate Events:

I do not judge debate events as often as speech ones, so if I am judging you in one, please try to keep it simple and understandable. I am looking for a speaker/team that makes a clear argument, defends it well, and speaks persuasively to get their point across. Treat your opponents with respect (do not badger, interrupt, etc.).

Speech Events:

The best speeches are ones that paint a clear story, message, argument, or narrative. I am looking for charismatic speakers with a good understanding of their topic, such that they can present it in a way that carries an audience member along with them as they build their argument or perform their piece. Since these events have a greater emphasis on presentation, please always speak slowly and with good tone and vocal variation.

Interp

Make sure the message is clear while still building a setting, characters, and a theme. In any interp event you should end the piece with the judge and the audience understanding exactly the course of events and the characters involved, so do your best to make those clear while performing. Ultimately, the best performances that will rank higher are ones that are cleanly executed that make the audience feel something.

I am a parent judge and have not judged before.

For all events

Please speak clearly and at a moderate speed, if I cannot hear or understand argument or point you make it may not be taken into consideration.

Debate Events:

I do not judge debate events as often as speech ones, so if I am judging you in one, please try to keep it simple and understandable. I am looking for a speaker/team that makes a clear argument, defends it well, and speaks persuasively to get their point across. Treat your opponents with respect (do not badger, interrupt, etc.).

Speech Events:

The best speeches are ones that paint a clear story, message, argument, or narrative. I am looking for charismatic speakers with a good understanding of their topic, such that they can present it in a way that carries an audience member along with them as they build their argument or perform their piece. Since these events have a greater emphasis on presentation, please always speak slowly and with good tone and vocal variation.

Interp

Make sure the message is clear while still building a setting, characters, and a theme. In any interp event you should end the piece with the judge and the audience understanding exactly the course of events and the characters involved, so do your best to make those clear while performing. Ultimately, the best performances that will rank higher are ones that are cleanly executed that make the audience feel something.