Tabroom.com

University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament

2023 — Ann Arbor, MI/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Albert Adiputra Capstone International Academy 6 rounds

Yumna Apta SD Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 4:40 AM WIB

As a jury adjudicating the Public Forum Debate, my primary goal is to ensure fairness, clarity, and effective communication. I highly value rational arguments and the use of good quality, relevant evidence to support claims. I'll assess the strength of arguments*, responsiveness to opponents**, and adherence to time limits. Respect and professionalism are essential, and I'll provide constructive feedback to help debaters grow. The goal is not only to win but also to promote critical thinking and skill development. My decisions will be solely based on the merits of the arguments presented in the round, and I'll maintain transparency in my feedback. Good luck to all participants!

(*): A well-structured argument is more persuasive. I will be evaluating the organization of content, including the use of assertions, reasoning, evidence, and conclusions/link-backs to ensure logical flow and coherence. The substance is crucial. I will assess the quality of the arguments presented, their relevance to the resolution, and their logical consistency. Debaters should provide strong evidence and analysis to support their claims.

(**): What I mean by responsiveness is debaters should engage with their opponents' arguments. I will take into account how well each team addresses their opponents' points and refutes them effectively in cross-examination***.

(***)Cross-examination: I value the ability to ask insightful and probing questions during cross-examination and the ability to respond to them effectively. It's an opportunity to clarify and strengthen your position.

(+ For Congress: more or less same with the PF, additionally to the quality of the content (argumentation, organization, evidence, & relevancy) & responsiveness (how you rebutt/respond to rebutt), I'm also taking into account how you deliver your speech given the dynamics of the congress (is your case compelling to the audiences? are you advancing the debate/bring more nuanced angle/evidence? are you listen & address/response the prev. speaker? how proactive in questioning?) and crystallization is expected in the closing appeal speech. Last but not least, always be mindful and respectful to others. Good luck!)

Warm regards,

Yumna Apta

Samuel Ayodele Nova Institute 6 rounds

Brandy Bar Saline High School 6 rounds None

Paul Bar Saline High School 2 rounds

Ajeet Batra WW-P Independent 4 rounds

Isabel Boncher Hire 6 rounds

Aloysius Brenner West Bloomfield High School 6 rounds

Austin Broussard Bergen Debate Club 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 7:55 AM CDT

Note: Things that are bolded in my paradigm are things I think people are generally looking for or I think are worth noting about my preferences. Read the bottom for my speaks paradigm; the TLDR paradigm is the third paragraph in this top section. Everything in this paradigm has a logical justification; ask me if something doesn't make sense and I'll be happy to explain.

Intro: Hi I'm Austin. I mainly debated LD in high school, but I'm familiar with most other event formats. I graduated from Northland Christian HS in 2020 and UT Austin in 2022 with a psych major phil minor. I'm currently a 2L at Texas Law. I competed on the local and national circuit all four years of high school (and have been judging/coaching consistently since graduating), so I like to think I'm pretty up to date on the technical nuances of LD. Add me to the chain at abroussard@utexa s.edu. Feel free to email me with specific questions before the round or thoughts on how I could improve my paradigm!

TLDR paradigm: I really love highly technical debates especially on a theoretical layer but I'm good with evaluating policy, kritik-al debate, etc.; by nature (even outside of debate) I default erring on the side of the person who is most logically consistent which means I will not vote for you unless you are ahead on a technical level (absent someone proposing an alternative method for me to evaluate by);my opinion on anything in this paradigm can change, just make the proper arg.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- I default args must be immediately sequential and/or allow for a sequential response ("concessions are true," "new 2nr args permissible," and "new 2ar args impermissible" are some noteworthy implications to this); this is my default because any other standard allows for the 2ar to always win by either answering arguments from the 1nc conceded by the 1ar/extended in the 2nr in the 2ar or by making new 2ar uplayers (i guess this means my actual default is against any paradigmatic stance that theoretically allows either side to win every debate because that defeats the purpose of the ballot/there being an adjudicator); please ask me about this point if there is any confusion before the debate starts (also note this is not a rigid stance, just a default)

- I will NOT make arguments for you because I believe judge intervention is the worst for the activity; consequently if your opponent does something that propels a model of debate that is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/abelist or something similar I will not drop them unless you mention it. It can be as simple as "they said/did x and that makes debate less accessible so they should lose." Otherwise the only thing I have jurisdiction to do is give them god awful speaks. To clarify if you don't say that they should lose for their discriminatory actions and they are ahead on the tech debate I will vote for them and be very very very sad about it. Please do not make me do this and call them out for being unethical. It's an easy ballot and better for debate.

- i'll evaluate arguments made as to why concessions don't make arguments true, extensions are unnecessary to win arguments, or any other argument you can think of

- I presume neg unless the neg reads an alternative that is farther from the squo than the aff's plan/advocacy (or presume aff/neg args are made, same for permissibility)

- tech>>>truth

- I default comparative worlds but love truth testing

- I will vote on literally anything given the proper framing metric and justification

- you don't have to ask me to flow by ear; I promise I'm both listening and reading your doc (to clarify, I'll catch extemporized blippy analytics)

- I probably default more T>K but that's really up to you

- Weighing makes me happy, as well as a strong fw tie/explanation

- For ethics challenges/evidence ethics calls reference the NSDA guidelines for this year; if the guidebook doesn't make a speaks claim I will either evaluate them myself given the speeches read (if any) or default normal round evaluation (meaning speaks spikes are viable)

- I don't have a default on disclosure at the moment but in debate I defaulted disclosure bad; regardless of my default it doesn't affect my ability to listen to either stance and adjudicate accordingly

- My ability to understand spread/speed is pretty good; feel free to go as fast as you want but please be clear

- Please please please ask your opponent if your practices are accessible before the round so you are 1. not exclusionary and 2. not susceptible to an easily avoidable independent voter; if you don't ask and end up doing something inaccessible you'll probably lose (provided they make it a voting issue); this includes giving trigger warnings

- flex prep is cool

- if you don't read a fw/fw is a wash I'll presume neg (same for voters on t/theory)

- you don't have to ask if I am ready for you to speak; I am probably paying attention (to clarify, default I am ready unless I say something that suggests otherwise)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pt. 1 Pref Shortcuts (by my confidence in my ability to adjudicate and 1 being most confident 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

Phil/High Theory- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

K- 1 or 2 (depending on density)

LARP- 1 to 3 (depending on density)

Pt. 2 Pref Shortcuts (by my desire to see them in round and 1 being most desirable 5 being least):

Theory/T/Tricks- 1

Phil/High Theory- 1

K- 2

LARP- 3

note: I will be happy to adjudicate LARP it's just not my highest preference

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy

Plans:

- Love these please know what your own plan says though

- I default plans are abusive mainly because I never read one for its PeDaGOgiCaL VaLUe it was always for strategy but don't let this discourage you from reading a plan seriously they're fine

- Honestly severance is cool with me but if they point it out and make a theoretical reason to drop it could be hard to beat back; if they read a condo or dispo CP, however, it becomes a little easier to get out of

- the solvency section is important for plans, if you don't have one it's gonna be rough

- please have an advocate just for the sake of an easier theory debate

Cps:

- These are cool but better if they're actually competitive; read as many as you want just know anything more than 1 is hard to justify theoretically especially if it's not uncondo (although I love multiple cp debates)

- Any cp is cool (including actor, process, etc.) just make sure the 2nr extension is sufficient to vote on

- I default condo bad but don't let that discourage you from utilizing it as I think condo is super strategic (which is good for speaks), you just have to be technically ahead on the theory debate; feel free to read like 8 condo cps just know it's an uphill theoretical battle (but certainly not impossible)

- I default perms as an advocacy because they always seem to be extended as such but it is really up to you

Das:

- Probably my least favorite position because they all seem to go down the same path towards the 2nr, but a good explanation and coupling with a competitive cp makes this position much better

- the more unique the da the more I'll like listening to it (please don't make me listen to a basic three card econ disad unless you don't plan on going for it)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phil/High Theory

General:

- Please do notttt confuse this with basic fw debate

- I used to read a few high theory positions but that doesn't mean my threshold for explanation on those positions is lower/higher than any other argument

- Kant is kool but I'm not a hack

- If the aff doesn't have a fw and the neg strategically reads a fw the aff can't link into, aff is probably losing

- If no one reads a fw I will probably not evaluate any post-fiat implications of either side and just vote on strength of link weighing (if justified)/presumption or a higher layer (i.e. I will NOT default util or sv for you this isn't pf)

- I'm hesitant to say this but I did read a decent amount of Baudrillard just know there is a reason why I stopped lol feel free to still read it though I love hearing it as well as any other high theory author

- I especially love hearing new philosophies that are either obscure or that I just haven't heard of yet; phil debate is one of my favorite parts of ld

- I am more likely to vote on presumption than I am to evaluate strength of link to fw in the instance I cannot decide which model to evaluate under

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kritiks

General:

- K Affs are fun but I am more inclined to err on the side of t-fw as that's what I mostly read and it seems intuitively true; it really depends on the framing metric though and I will definitely vote on a k aff vs t-fw as long as there is sufficient tech offense

- KvK is cool

- poems/music/art/performance can be offense and if you don't respond to it your opponent can extend it as conceded (I have no problem voting on conceded performance offense with the proper framing mech)

Fw:

- should have a ROB and/or ROJ (and the best ones are not blatantly inaccessible to one side)

- if your opponent asks you a specific question about the framing of your kritik and you cannot give them a cohesive answer it's gonna look bad

- if the distinction is unclear between the method the k evaluates by and the aff's you will have a hard time winning

Links:

- please don't read links that you yourself link into

- Having specific rhetoric from the aff itself or your opponent is great and much better than just topic/omission links

- I love seeing the extrapolation of links as linear das in the 2nr

- I am comfortable voting off state/omission links they're just boring

Impacts:

- you must have them and they must be unique; please do weighing as well because k impacts don't always contextualize themselves

Alt:

- explain plz; It doesn't have to be explained super well if your opponent doesn't press the issue but I need to have a basic understanding of what I'm voting on i.e. what the world of the alt looks like (unless a set col type arg is made about imagining the alt being a move to settlerism, etc.)

- Please don't make the alt condo/dispo if your k is about some sort of oppression it looks bad

- do not read two contradictory alts in front of me you will probably lose; if they work well together that's cool

Overviews:

- I LOVE these they make it easier to evaluate the line by line because all the big picture issues are out of the way

- Please make sure the overview is not just line by line in disguise (I was guilty of this) but is instead framing the ways I need to evaluate offense

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

T/Theory/Tricks

General:

- literally my fav the more you read the more I'll enjoy the debate as long as you know what you're doing

- friv is fantastic

Interps:

- please make them positively worded

- be careful of your wording; poor wording leaves you susceptible to easy i meets

Violations:

- have them and extend them in the next speech

- screenshots/photos are the best

Standards:

- there are really only like four good standards that the rest fall under categorically but it's whatever

- the more the merrier

- if you do fairness and education linkage inside the standard block I'll be happier

Voters/paradigm issues:

- I default rvi's good and competing interps unless otherwise specified

- I tend to default fairness first but am VERY easily able to be persuaded otherwise

- you must justify voters independently of the standards section (i.e. explain why fairness, education, fun, etc. matter)

Tricks:

- I evaluate these arguments like any other (if they have a claim/warrant/impact you're good)

- I think a block of text is funny but definitely annoying as far as the organization of your spikes/tricks so preference is at least numbering but it's really not a big deal if you can explain them well

- These arguments are generally so bad but if you don't respond or spend too much time messing with them the round becomes significantly more difficult for you

- I can be persuaded by some sort of spikes k so be wary

- I'm unsure if afc/acc are tricks, but know I'll listen to both and any other pseudo-trick

- aprioris and eval after the 1ac are the a-strat

- I'm fine with indexicals, condo logic, log con, etc. (idk how else to say i'll vote on literally any trick/arg generally)

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Speaks

General:

- I will grant a 30 speaks spike (i.e. give both/one of the debaters 30 speaks for x reason) as long as it's extended (or reasons are made as to why an extension isn't necessary)

- if no ties are allowed on the ballot I technically am unable to perform "give both debaters 30 speaks" and i'll evaluate like i normally would; if you know no ties are allowed/are uncertain if ties are allowed, spec 30/29.9 rather than 30s bc that's always permissible on tab (and i'll give the 30 to whoever would be ahead under my typical speaks evaluation unless told otherwise)

- if you're uncertain if tab

- I generally give speaks based on strategic decision making (and will try to justify the deductions if asked, although ultimately they're always on some level arbitrary)

- Anything that you do that purposefully makes your opponent uncomfortable, expresses discrimination/oppression, or generally makes the debate space unsafe will result in your top speaks being a 25 and more likely will result in a 0 or whatever the lowest allowed speaks value is

- for locals I generally give 28-30 and for nat circuit 27-30 unless the tournament has a specified structure; occasionally if the round is super underwhelming I'll evaluate a local like I would a nat circuit

- If you make me laugh you're definitely getting a speaks inflation but this is rare and it has to be genuine

- I'll clear twice without a speaks deduction and definitely have more lenience in the online format (i hardly ever clear anyways)

Annie Chen Cupertino Independent 4 rounds

Bo Chen Canyon Crest Academy 6 rounds

Gina Chen Eticko Debate Academy 6 rounds

Ting Chen Interlake HS 6 rounds

David Cho Clarksburg High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 6:41 AM EDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sekou Cisse Hire 6 rounds

Beth Luzann Cole Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 19, 2024 at 10:29 AM EDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christopher Cole Skyline High School 3 rounds None

Deshon Corbesero Hire 6 rounds

Santhoshi DB Head-Royce High School 6 rounds

Naveta Dhall Interlake HS 1 rounds

Sydney Dillon Saline High School 6 rounds

Terrance Dsilva MagnetIQ 3 rounds

Hannah Du Canyon Crest Academy

Maya ElHawary VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy 6 rounds

Gabriel Esquivel Yglesias ADL 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 18, 2024 at 12:48 AM CST

Coach @ Asian Debate League

Debated 4 years at Kapaun** Mount Carmel in Wichita, Kansas, 2017

Debated 4 years NDT/CEDA/D3 at University of Kansas, 2021

Email chain: gaboesquivel@gmail.com

My biases:

I lean aff for condo. Some might say too much. I might expect a lot from you if you do go for it.

For K's I value consistency between the scale of the links and impacts i.e. in round impacts should have in round links.

I strongly bias toward "The K gets links and impacts vs the aff's fiated impacts" unless someone delivers a very persuasive speech. I can be persuaded that making a personal ethical choice is more important than preventing a nuclear war.

I lean toward affs with plans. Fairness concerns me less than usual nowadays. I like research/clash impacts.

I will read evidence and vote for evidence in debates where things are not settled by the debater's words. This happens frequently in T debates and impact turn debates.

Status quo is always an option=judge kick

How I judge:

I am patient with novices because most of my students are novices.

I listen first and read your evidence second. If you are clear, this distinction shouldn't matter. If you aren't clear I'm not comfortable reading your blocks and cards to fill in the gaps for you.

I flow and use everything I hear in my decision, and overemphasize what is said in the rebuttals. I'll reference the 1AR speech to protect the 2NR on a 2AR that "sounds new" and I'll reference the block on a 2NR that claims the 1AR dropped something. I'll reference a 2AC on a 1AR that claims the block dropped something, etc.

For a dropped argument to be a true argument it must have been a complete claim and warrant from the beginning. I am not a fan of being "sneaky" or "tricky". Unless you are going for condo ;)

I am persuaded by ethos and pathos more than logos. I find myself wanting to vote for a debater who tries to connect with me more than a debater who reads a wall of blocks even if they are technically behind. When both teams are great speakers I rely more on tech and evidence.

I try to craft my decision based on language used by the debaters. I reference evidence when I cannot resolve an argument by flow alone. PhD's, peer reviewed journals, and adequate highlighting will help you here. If I can't resolve it that way I'll look for potential cross applications or CX arguments and might end up doing work for you. If I do work for one team I will try to do the same amount for the other team. It might get messy if its close, that's what the panel is for, but please challenge my decision if you strongly disagree and I'll tell you where my biases kicked in.

**Pronounced (Kay-pen)

Prisha Gandhi Speech and Debate India Middle School 6 rounds

Sandeep Goyal WW-P Independent 5 rounds

Lisa Grzywacz Cranbrook 6 rounds

Aman Haileyesus Marist School 6 rounds

Mahmoud Hassanpour Amador Valley High School None

Susan Ho Hire 4 rounds None

Yutong Hu Cranbrook 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 21, 2024 at 10:03 AM EDT

hyt60435@gmail.com | she/her | college freshman

TLDR: flow judge that hates progressive arguments.

Current debater at Carnegie Mellon University. I have debated 4 years of varsity PF on both local and national circuits during high school at Cranbrook.

You can assume I know enough about the topic/stock arguments/abbreviations.

Include me in speech docs and email chains. My WiFi is terrible -> please speech doc.

Logistics

The more I have to intervene in a round (cut you off for overtime, wait for a debater to show up, get asked how much prep you have left, etc), the lower your speaks will be.

I will drop you if your case requires a trigger warning and it is not read at the beginning. I don't need a Google Form opt-out. Just read your warning before constructive or ask everyone before round.

If there's a piece of evidence that is contested in the round, I will call for it again. If I find it to be paraphrased poorly or if you are misrepresenting the evidence, I will automatically drop you.

I will usually disclose if there is longer than 20 minutes between round ending to next round release. I do not disclose in Novice/JV.

Speed

Spreading is okay as long as you are clear. I will let you know clear once, and after that, if I still can't understand I will not evaluate your argument. In general, 250wpm - 300wpm is the max speed for clarity with a speech doc.

If you are online, remember that it's much harder to hear you over NSDA campus/Zoom.

Substance

Quality over quantity. More arguments or evidence doesn't guarantee a better case.

Tech over truth. If your opponents tell me the moon is made of cheese with warranting, it's made of cheese until you point out otherwise with warranting. I'll be very happy if someone reads global warming turn because it encourages space exploration or arguments like that :)

Extend and weigh. Defense is not sticky. If you don't extend something (contention, defense, weigh, turn, etc.) through a speech, I will assume it's dropped. If the round is close, I will default to the weighing in round.

I don't flow cross.

Progressive

If you're in PF I will not evaluate theory or K unless it is warranted extremely well, with the exception of obvious discrimination or micro-aggression from your opponents (although at this point I'd drop them regardless).

Even then, I cannot guarantee I will be able to vote correctly. My threshold for responses to theory is very low. A counterinterp is not necessary. Do not run disclosure theory. I will not vote for it.

Framework

Framework is fine. Framework that calls for a response in your opponent's constructive is not fine. Framework that is read in rebuttal is not fine. Default to util if no framework in either constructives. Cost/benefit = util framework.

I don't like frameworks that are warranted to "vote for this argument to spread awareness" or "because this issue is on the back burner in the real world then we should evaluate this first in this round."

I will vote correctly on frameworks but it doesn't mean I like them. If your framework is obviously a time suck or abusive towards the opponents I will drop you. If you aren't sure ask before the round.

In general, if you're defaulting to util, I highly suggest you write a 3-4 point warranting on why util is better (or just find one on Wiki).

TLDR: Util > other framing

Doug Husic West Bloomfield High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 11, 2024 at 3:27 PM EDT

Getting my PhD at Wayne State University in communication studies. Competed at Wayne State, qualified to the NDT twice. Assistant coach for West Bloomfield High School’s public forum and IE team.

Include me on emails chains please: DouglasAHusic@gmail.com

I flow on paper, please give me pen time. Start slower and settle into top speed instead of missing parts early on. I care about clarity more than who reads a few more cards. CX is a speech, I flow it in every debate format. I rarely follow along with docs.

Non-important old man yelling at cloud moment: The 1ac is an opportunity for free speaker points and sets the tone for the debate, a lot of people sound like they don't practice reading it.

----

Whoever controls the framing of how to evaluate offense in a debate generally wins my ballot. This is universally true for all argument styles and debate formats. I am very flow dependent. Specifics listed below, but absolute defense is a hard sell absent drops, strategic concessions, or the argument was poorly constructed to begin with.

Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity first and foremost driven by student research. As a debater research was my favorite part of the activity so I certainly appreciate quality evidence production on unique and different arguments. Communication surrounding the importance of evidence is most relevant to how I evaluate it at the end of the debate. A great card that is undersold and not explained and applied may get my appreciation when you bring it to my attention in the post-round, but absent you directing me to the significance of that evidence or why I need to read it won't be important to my ballot. If it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t register for my decision, and, if the warrant is on my flow and uncontested, it won’t matter if the evidence supporting it is weak. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the lengths many of my peers turn to the docs to verify claims that in my mind are just not being debated. If your arguing on the line by line in no way questions the other team's characterization of evidence, I will never go on a fact finding mission.

I expect debater's to make relevant issues on evidence known in the debate.

Debater's should answer arguments.

You don't get to walk-back win conditions you establish that are conceded.

Thoughts on framework:

Full transparency I went for this argument for the majority of my career as a debater as a one-off position, and can be compelled that there should be some limit on the topic for the purpose of predictable negative ground. So take that for what you will.

However, I am also highly sympathetic given my personal pedagogical and research interests as a scholar of alternative interpretations of the resolution for the purposes of interdisciplinary/undisciplined debates. Teams that have a well thought out counter interpretation and vision for what their model of debate looks like are often in a strategically good place for my ballot. In my mind a counter interpretation provides a useful avenue for resolving both sides offense and is often a place where I wish the negative invested more time in the block and 2nr.

That being said, I have been persuaded by affirmative teams who impact turn framework without a counter interpretation. Iterations of this argument which have been persuasive to me in the past include critiques of predictability as a means to actualize clash, critiques of fiats epistemic centrality to clash/fairness/education, arguments which emphasize styles of play over notions of fairness for the game, as well as impact turning the rhetorical performance of framework.

A frequent line in decisions I vote aff on framework, "I think the negative is winning a link on limits explosion, but has underdeveloped the internal link between limits to clash/fairness/epistemic skills as an impact, and furthermore that impact's relationship to the way the aff has framed insert X DA or X impact from the 2ac overview on case is never once articulated". I'm a big believer in if you want to say T/framework is engagement you should actually engage the language and impacts the aff has presented, I will not fill in these connections for you because you say "praxis or debate is key to activism".

Teams over-emphasize the TVA without fully developing the argument. A core dilemma for the negative in round's I judge is the TVA's interaction with affirmative themes, performances, and theories remain superficial and surface level at best. Even when a great piece of evidence is read by the negative, it is an error in execution for the negative to rely on the judge to resolve these connections. My threshold for the TVA being "sufficient" is often higher then my peers. Given the value of the TVA as a way to resolve affirmative offense it is a spot where I think the negative must dig deep(ala Jeff Probst from Survivor) to put themselves ahead in a debate. There are many ways the negative can do this effectively, but all require a more thorough incorporation of the TVA from the onset of your strategy. It's bad form and a missed opportunity when the negative refuses to give an example/or doesn't know of a TVA in C-X of the 1nc. I'm a believer that there is a benefit in the negative block introducing other TVAs in the negative block, The 2nc should tie TVA's to performances, impact arguments, and theories of the 1ac. Saying you could have talked about X thing as a performance instead often falls flat. Do research pre-round or pre-tournament into the artefacts of the 1ac, be creative, you can incorporate them I believe in you.

I am also not a particularly good judge for negative impact explanations which rely on the assumption that the values of research/clash/fairness/iteration are inherent/exclusive benefits of a limited model. The negative often debates in front of me operating from the assumption the aff will win none of their offense or has abandoned these values in their entirety, this is both a bad move and often just a blatant mischaracterization of aff debating. An example with iterative testing. A premise which is hard to dislodge me from: all research is iterative, full-stop. Even when the aff has no counter interpretation, their research practices and argumentative styles are iterative because they build upon previously written research and arguments. This means arguments like iterative testing require more specificity in their explanation. The framing of "Only the negative model allows room for teams to refine arguments to third and fourth level" often rings hollow because it is more descriptive of the strategic incentives to develop arguments over the course of a season (which likely exist in any research activity), and not describe the actual benefit of the style of iteration of your model. A more persuasive iteration impact to me focuses on the question of quality and utility of each models style of iteration, tending more to questions like: is there an insurgent/epistemic benefit to maximizing iteration of state based politics vs negative critique? Instead of saying "the aff always goes for the perm in K v K debates," delve into questions of how affirmative models might distort the capaciousness of K v K debate? Or shutdown debates that are meaningful in the literature through standards and practices of debate's offense/defense paradigm? Are there moments where the aff contradicts their model or counter interp performatively? What is the significance of these contradictions? Are there potentially negative effects of the aff model for subjectivity? All of this is really my way of pleading with you burn the blocks of your predecessor, make some new arguments, read a book, do something.

Creativity and negative argument development on framework has plateaued.

You all sound the same.

I will be extremely frustrated if you opt to go for framework over any argument that is clearly well-developed and clashes with the aff that they blow off. There are many rounds where the 2nr decision to go for framework shocks me given 1ar coverage. Don't include A+ material if you are not prepared to go for it.

K’s vs Policy teams:

I’m a fan. I like when there is a lot of interaction with the case. I'm an ok judge for specific philosophical criticisms of the plan. I'm a substantially worse judge for "you defend [use] the state." The alternative tends to be the focus of my decision (is it competitive, what does it do to resolve the links, etc). I'm a pragmatist at heart, I believe in real-world solutions to problems and I'm often persuaded that we ought to make the world a better place. How your alternative deals with affirmative attacks of this genre matters a lot to me. I've voted for more pessimistic or alt-less Ks, but, again, mostly due to technical errors by the affirmative. I find myself caring less about alternative solvency when the negative team has spent time proving to me that the aff doesn’t solve their impacts either.

Aff teams are most successful when they have a clear approach to the theme of the negatives K from the 1ac. Either be the impact turn alt doesn’t solve team --- or be the link turn plus perm team --- wishy washiness just gets the aff into more trouble then its worth often allowing the negative a lot of narrative control on what the aff is or isn’t about.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K. You're better served making arguments which elevate the importance of the impacts you've described and undercutting the ability of the aff to resolve their own. I'm totally open to disproving the affirmative's model of predictions - I just think you have to do the work to have my skepticism outweigh their narrative. I don't think its a particularly hard sell for me when the work is done. But I rarely see teams engage the case enough to decrease risk.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go

DAs:

Links control the direction of the DA in my mind absent some explanation to the counter in the debate

You should invest neg block time into the link story (unless it's impact turned). A compelling link argument is very powerful, and can cover holes in your evidence. "Impact turns the case" is a bit overrated, because it normally lacks uniqueness. Not making the arg is a mistake, but banking on it can also be a mistake.

I miss straight impact turning and link turning strategies from aff teams.

Theory:

theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Performative contradictions matter less to me in the 1nc especially if they’re like a reps K (stuff like the Econ DA and Cap is more suspect). Performative contradictions carried through as a position in the block grinds my gears and should be talked about more. Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to.

New affs bad as a policy argument is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals:

By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. I will say though lack of specification often annoys me on both sides have a debate, cut some offense, defend something please. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style.

Cheating - I won't usually initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. but if i notice it i reserve the right to call you out when especially egregious If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

Ethics challenges brought up pertaining to fabrication or out of context evidence submitted into a round end the debate for me. If it is determined that the ev is fabricated or meaningfully out of context then the team who introduced the evidence receives a loss and the low end of my point scale.

Ian Hwang BC Academy 6 rounds

Aryan Jasani Hire

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 3:45 PM EDT

Plano Senior '20

Indiana University '23

3X NDT Qualifier (21,22,23)

Add me on the email chain ajasanideb8@gmail.com

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "Kentucky - Round 1 - Indiana JP (AFF) vs Indiana GJ (NEG)"

CONFLICTS: Plano Senior(TX), Clark High School(TX), Stanford Online(CA), Southlake Carroll(TX), Indiana University(IN),

TLDR: Flexible, but don't read anything that is offensive.

Largely agree with

Some Generic Stuff

1)I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other

2)No judge will ever like all the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate every argument fairly. I will always listen to positions from every angle. Be clear both in delivery and argument function/interaction and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story.

3) Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, straw-manning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L-0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).

4)The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.)

5) I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself.

6) Use all of your speech and cross-ex time. I will dock speaker points if you use cross-ex for prep, or if you end a speech early. I think that there's always more you can ask or say about an argument, even if you're decisively ahead.

7) I care a lot about evidence quality. Use your cards well and utilize them the best you can. Unpack your warrants and be comparative; use lines of your own and your opponents' evidence to flag important arguments that matter to my decision.

8) I can handle speed as long as you are CLEAR, BUT please accommodate for your opponents who have disabilities

9) Tech>Truth

10) NOTE FOR ONLINE: Record your speeches. If anyone's internet goes out you should immediately send the recording to everyone in the round. If you don't have a recording, you only get what I flowed. I would strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but I obviously recognize the very real and valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Policy Paradigm

K Affs: I don’t care whether you read a plan or not, but affs should have a specific tie to the resolution and be a departure from the status quo that is external from the reading of the 1AC. Impact turning framework is more strategic than counter-defining words or reading clever counter-interps, but you should have a clear model of debate and what the role of the negative is.

Framework: Affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic, even if not traditional endorsement or hypothetical implementation of a policy. At the bare minimum, affirmatives should "affirm" something. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that are purely negative arguments or diagnoses. Teams should have a robust defense of what their model of debate/argument looks like and what specific benefits it would produce. Teams tend to do better in front of me if they control the framing of what I should do with my ballot or what my ballot is capable of solving. Whether it signals an endorsement of a particular advocacy, acts as a disincentive in a games-playing paradigm, or whatever else, my conclusion on what the ballot does often filters how I view every other argument. Teams tend to do better with me the more honest they are about what a given debate or ballot can accomplish."TVAs" can be helpful, but need to be specific. I expect the block to provide an example plan text. Solvency evidence is ideal, but a warranted explanation for how the plan text connects to the aff's broader advocacy/impact framing can be sufficient. If the 2NR is going to sit on a TVA, be explicit about what offense you think the TVA accesses or resolves.

Policy v K: Don't lose the specificity of the aff in favor of generic K answers. Reading long framing contentions that fail to make it past the 1AC and 2ACs that include every generic K answer won't get you as far as taking the time to engage the K and being intentional about your evidence. You should clearly articulate an external impact and the framing for the round. I'm more likely to buy framework arguments about how advocating for a policy action is good politically and pedagogically than fairness arguments.

K v Policy: Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff. Make sure to tell me why the impacts of the K come first and weigh the impacts of the K against that of the alt. Absent serious investment in the framework portion of the debate/massive concessions, the aff will most likely get to weigh the aff's impacts against the K so impact comparison and framing are vital. Framework arguments should not only establish why the aff's framework is bad but also establish what your framework is so that my ballot is more aligned more closely with your framework by the end of the debate. K's don't have to have an alt and you can kick out of the alt and go for the links as case turns.

K v K: Affs should have an advocacy statement and defend a departure from the status quo. Affs don't have to have a clear method coming out of the 1AC, although I am more likely to vote neg on presumption absent a method. I have a higher threshold for perms in debates where the aff doesn't defend a plan but just saying "K affs don't get perms" isn't sufficient for me to deny the perm.

Policy v Policy: Nothing much to say here, but please weigh!!

T: I enjoy a good T debate and think T is very underutilized against policy affs. Make sure you are substantively engaging with the interpretation and standards and aren’t just blitzing through your blocks. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

CP: Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates. 2NCs/2NRs should start with a quick overview of what the CP does. Blazing through this at top speed will not contribute to my understanding. Fine with you reading PICS

DA: Framing is everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness, or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Theory: I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Conditionality is fine within reason. When it seems absurd it probably is, and it's not impossible to persuade me to reject the team, but it is an uphill battle. It's hard to imagine voting aff unless there are 4 or more conditional advocacies introduced.

LD paradigm

Theory: I believe that RVI is very illogical and non-sensical, thus I will not vote on RVIs. Everything else look at the policy paradigm.

Philosophy/FW: I really like a good framework debate. Please make all framework arguments comparative. I will default to truth testing unless told otherwise.

Tricks:After doing policy for a while, I just think tricks are silly and are usually very underdeveloped. If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or misallocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I won't vote on a trick that I don't understand or doesn't have a warrant. Please don't blitz through spikes. I am quite willing to give an RFD of "I didn't flow that," "I didn't understand that," or "I don't think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.

Policy and Kritik: Look at the policy paradigm.

PF Paradigm

I prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus. I am fine with Policy/LD arguments in PF.

1) The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus besides offense is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate the risk of offense claims.

2)The First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).

3)2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- don't try to respond in a later speech.

4)Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

5) If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and Final Focus.

6)I'm fine with progressive PF- I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my Policy/LD paradigm above.

7)You get a 1:15 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.

8)Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

9)If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct 0.2 speaks each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

10)Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I would love for an email chain to start during the round with all cards on it.

Speaker Points Scale

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

GG Jones VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy 6 rounds

Austin Kelachukwu VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy 6 rounds

kapil Khurana Bergen Debate Club 6 rounds None

Charles Kishi VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy 6 rounds

Mona Kothari Speech and Debate India Middle School 6 rounds

Nicole Kroepel Belvidere North High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed May 8, 2024 at 6:57 AM CDT

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

Aarya Kulkarni Speech and Debate India Middle School 6 rounds

Richard Kyan Bergen Debate Club 6 rounds None

Emily Laduke West Bloomfield High School None

MaryAlice LeDuc Cranbrook

Renee Li Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 11, 2024 at 7:00 AM EDT

when they say you need to judge

hi! i debated for plano west. i use they/them pronouns. add me to the email chain: rhl53@georgetown.edu

tl;dr

• my priority #1 is a safe debate space. read trigger/content warnings with proper opt-outs when applicable, respect people’s pronouns, and generally don't act exclusionary/___ist or you will be given an L and 20s

• watching people debate off speech docs makes me sad.

• extend the entire argument (uniqueness through impact) and collapse please. otherwise, your speaks will be a bit concerning

• warrants > evidence; i won't call for cards unless you tell me to, or if a lack of warrant comparison requires me to

the rest

• email chain ≥ google doc >>> zoom/nsda campus chat. pf evidence ethics...

• "new warrants are new arguments and will be treated as such" —aj yi

• unanswered defense is sticky in first summary; the only frontlining i require in second rebuttal is turns/offense

• i like progressive arguments, as long as they are run in a way that's accessible to everyone in the round. if you read tricks or friv when your opponents didn't agree to a tricks/friv round, you are cringe and my threshold for what counts as a good response will be very very low

• i don't mind speed, but if i have to flow off a speech doc, you're going too fast. (if i have to clear you more than 2-3 times, i'm deducting speaks) that being said, send your speech docs anyway

• random specific icks: dumping/doc botting and then either looking confused mid-speech when reading through some of the responses on your doc or using completely irrelevant responses, calling for a gajillion cards and then not making them relevant in any speech, probability weighing, impact weighing the same impact scenario read on both sides, being called judge (just call me renee)

• i don't have a presumption preference. if the round goes off the rails, tell me why i presume for you or else i may or may not flip a coin

• click here to boost your speaks; click here and here for instant serotonin

feel free to ask questions! i’m fine with postrounding

if you ever need someone to talk to or have anything else you want to ask, my facebook messenger and instagram (@reneelix) dms are always open

glhf!

Eric Yuze Ma Skyline High School 3 rounds

Raymond Ma Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

Yash Mandloi Speech and Debate India Middle School 6 rounds

Isaac Martinez Hire 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 3, 2024 at 12:14 PM CDT

¡Hola!

Please add me to the email chain. I DO NOT USE SPEECH DROP OR FILE SHARE

isaackudebate@gmail.com

General Info:

I view my role as an educator rather than a policymaker, and that will not change. Debate is an educative activity where we all agree to come together on a weekend to apply different solutions to solve a problem. At the end of the day, we are still learning about new subjects, or new portions of certain subject that we had not learned before.

Pronouns – They/He

Spearman High School TX 2022

University of Kansas 2026

I may look mad, but trust me I'm not!

Judge>Isaac

I competed in Congress in High School competitively, and now policy in College.

Do not use any discriminatory language or actions (Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Xenophobic, etc.)

If you have committed to the University of Kansas, please conflict me.

Online Debate:

General Rule of thumb. If my camera is off, I am not ready. Please be patient with me, and I'll be patient with you. :)

Please speak slower than usual. It's better for me to hear your args than lose them from the audio cutting out. It doesn't have to be super slow, just enough to where your audio doesn't cut out.

I don't really care if your camera is on. I'd like to see your face rather than stare at a blank screen for a debate, but you do you!

**UPDATED 10/06/2023**

Novice Debaters, the following does not apply to you. No need to stress over this event. All I ask is simply to speak as clearly, don't say anything problematic, and as fast as you can and flow the opposing arguments. Ultimately, just have fun!! :)

LD & PF:

I am not really familiar with the topic or the jargon, but if your are args are clear, are easy to flow, and are reasonable, I am all for it! Ultimately, just do what you've been doing and have fun!!

Some parts of my policy paradigm would be useful to fill in regards to speed, speaks, and the K. Do not be afraid to check it out :)

POLICY:

Speed:

I do not really care how fast you go. I would recommend that you speak as fast and as clearly as you can. No need to push yourself to hit a new speed time.

Economic Inequality Topic:

I really enjoyed the policy debates I saw at the JDI this summer. I have a few personal opinions about this topic myself, but nothing too drastic on how I view my ballot.

Few Policy Notes:

I think the 50 states Counter Plan is a good debate arg, but I need some unpacking here. I need a reason why the USFG is a bad actor and why you can fiat all 50 states to be on-board.

Evidence:

I like cards and I also like blocks. Your effort in cutting cards will not go unnoticed, but it must contribute to the debate. I like it when teams offer evidence that changes my perspective on how the debate should be looked at. You will not have my vote if you drop key evidence from the opposing side.

As a K reader myself, I am a very good judge to K teams. I am fairly kept up with Latinx literature, Cap K lit, as well as some of Berlant. I just need a link to why the 1AC is bad, or I will have a hard time voting for you. I look at the K as a way to think about if the fundamentals in aff are good. I encourage the reading of Ks, but try to be as clear as you can with them.

K Affs:

I honestly like to listen to planless affs that claim their Kritique matters in the Debate. I do not want to listen to 8 mins from the 1AC and 2AC that has no impact to the debate. Basically, advocate your aff in front of me and have a good framework on how the end goal will look like.

K aff v Framework:

I think this debate is fine. I enjoy clash debates. TVAs are ok. SSD is ok. Refer to my T notes

Condo:

Kinda tricky for me. I think Condo has its issues on both sides. I ultimately view this as a tie-breaker if the debate is close, but I auto-default to Condo bad if dropped in the 2NR.

DA:

I think a DA is crucial for a policy debate. It sounds cliche but I really mean it. I think a DA should be answered because it gives me a reason why your plan, counterplan, alt, etc. is bad. If not answered/dropped, please give a good reason why it does not matter for me.

I think T debate is ok, but sometimes it can get silly. I think if the aff wins that they meet the T threshold for topic, then the negative should go for their other off case and case positions.

Counter-Plans:

I like them. I think if they solve the aff's inherency better, then I'm all for it. I think multiple plank CPs can be excessive sometimes, so lets be reasonable on how many CPs you want run in front of me. I won't Judge Kick, so don't ask me to.

Speaker Points:

I judge speaker points on how clearly you speak in your speeches, if you can maintain your argument in the cross-ex, and if your args are well debated. My speaks stay around the 28 range. You will have to really aggravate me to get lower. e.g. Discriminating against the opponents, me, etc. I DO NOT tolerate that behavior and will lower your speaks/nuke them as a result.

Other/misc:

I default to judge instruction, unless if you drop condo.

Be nice to each other. I get debate is an intense game and it can get heated, but it's not fun when you are being bullies to your opponents.

Some judges to reference for the spots I have not covered: Will Soper, Luna Schultz, Dr. Scott Harris, and Dr. Brett Bricker and the rest of the KU Coaching staff.

Music is an argument. which means you should flow it.

Performance is good.

+0.3 speaks for all if you shake hands, fist bump, etc. with each others after the debate :)

Final Notes:

I look forward to listening to you all and to listening for what you stand for. I wish you the best of luck!

Aditi Mhatre Speech and Debate India Middle School 6 rounds

Ryan Morgan Interlake HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 1:31 PM PDT

Especially for online debate, slow down a little, particularly from the 2NC on.

Please include Ryanpmorgan1@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com for the email chain. Please use subject lines that make clear what round it is.

I wrote a veritable novel below. I think its mostly useless. I'm largely fine with whatever you want to do.

Top level:

I am older (36) and this definitely influences how I judge debates.
Yes, I did policy debate in high school and college. I was mediocre at it.
Normal nat circuit norms apply to me. Speed is fine, offense/defense calc reigns, some condo is probably good but infinite condo is probably bad, etc.
I have a harder time keeping up with very dense/confusing debates than a lot of judges. Simplifying things with me is always your best bet.

Areas where I diverge from some nat circuit judges:

I am more likely to call "nonsense" on your bewildering process CP or Franken K. If the arg doesn't make any sense, you should just tell me that.
Aff vagueness (and in effect, conditionality) is out of control in modern debate. I will vote on procedural arguments to rectify this trend.
Bad process CPs are bad and shouldn't be a substitute for cutting cards or developing a real strategy. Obviously, I'll vote on them, but the 2AR that marries perm + theory into a comprehensive model for debate is usually a winner.
I'm less likely to "rep" out teams or schools. I don't keep track of bid leaders and what not. Related: I forget about most rounds 20 minutes after I turn in my ballot.

Stats:

Overall Aff win rate: 48.7%
Elim aff win rate: 42.3%
I have sat 6 times in 53 elims

Core controversies - I'm pretty open so take these with a grain of salt.

Unlimited condo | -----X-------- | 2-worlds, maybe
Affs should be T | ---X----------- | T isn't a voter
Judge kick | ----X--------- | No judge kick
"Meme" arguments | --------X- | You better be amazing at "meme" debate
Research = better speaks | --X--------- | Tech = better speaks
Speed | -------X---- | Slow down a little
Inherency is case D | -X--------- | Inherency is a DA thumper

My Knowledge:

I went for politics DA a lot. Its the only debate thing I'm a genuine expert in, at least in debate terms.
I do not "get" the topic (inequality) yet. I did not go to camp. Debate like this is Mich finals at your own peril.
I have some familiarity with the following K lit - cap, Foucault/Agamben, Lacan/psychoanalysis, security, nuclear rhetoric, nihilism, non-violence, and gendered language.
I'm basically clueless RE: set col / Afropess / Baudrillard / Bataille. I have voted on all of them, though, in the past..

K affs

I prefer topical affs, and I like plan-focused debates. I'm neg-leaning on T-framework in the sense that I think reality leans neg if you actually play out the rationale behind most K affs that are being run in modern debate. But I vote aff about 50% of the time in those debates, so if that's your thing, go for it.

T/cap K/ ballot PIK and the like are boring to me, though. I think that unless the K aff is pure intellectual cowardice, and refuses to take a stand on anything debatable, there are usually better approaches for the neg to take.

I'm a great judge for impact turning K affs - e.g., cap good, state reform good.

Word PIKs are a good way to turn the aff's rejection of T/theory against them.

Or, you could simply, you know, engage the aff's lit base and cut some solvency turns / make a strong presumption argument that engages with the aff's method.

Some other advice:

"Bad things are bad" is not a very interesting argument. You should have a solvency mechanism.
Affs should have a "debate key" warrant. That warrant can involve changing the nature of debate, but you should have some reason you are presenting your argument in the context of a debate round.
I think fairness matters, but its obviously possible to win that other things matter more depending on the circumstances.
Traditional approaches to T-FW is best with me - very complicated 5th-level args on T are less persuasive to me than a simple and unabashed defense of topicality + switch-side debate = fairness + education. "We can't debate you, and that makes this activity pointless" is usually a win condition for the neg, in my book. St. Marks teams always do a really good job on this in front of me, so idk, emulate them I guess, or steal their blocks.

Topicality against policy affs

I have not read enough into this topic's literature to have a strong opinion on the core controversies.

I think I tend to lean into bigger topics than most modern judges do. That a topic might have dozens of viable affs is not a sign of a bad topic, so long as it incents good scholarship and the neg has ways to win debates if they put in the work.

Speaker points

When deciding speaks, I tend to reward research over technical prowess.

If you are clobbering the other team, slow down and make the debate accessible to them. Running up the score will run down your speaks.

I frequently check my speaker points post-tournament to make sure I'm not an outlier. I am not, as near as I can tell. I probably have a smaller range than average. It takes a LOT to get a 29.3 or above from me, but it also takes a lot for me to go below 28.2 or so.

Ethical violations

I am pretty hands off and usually not paying close enough attention to catch clipping unless it is blatant.

Prep stealing largely comes out of your speaks, unless the other team makes an appeal.

Nidhu Nijhawan Bergen Debate Club 6 rounds None

Amanda Nobra Hire

Victor Owolabi VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy 6 rounds

Preeti Pandit Bergen Debate Club 6 rounds

Panayiotis Papaioannou Hire 6 rounds

Vikas Puri Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

Ethan Ramos Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:53 AM CDT

Howdy,

I have countless years of experience as a judge/coach for HS debate, and I was a collegiate competitor back in the day ... Not to mention I have been judging on the local, state and national level around the country.

PLZ treat your opponent the way you would want to be treated, there is no room for rudeness or hate in debate
if you treat us judges terribly I will spread your name among the community and encourage everyone to blacklist you
tournaments that use .5 speaks are VERY bad, .1 all THE way
My philosophy is Teachers teach, Coaches coach and Judges judge ... it is what it is
Talking fast is ok, spreading is a big NO for me ... also if its not a bid tournament I DONT want to be on the chain / will not look at the doc

IE's: MS and HS level - you do you, be you and give it your all!!

Collegiate (AFA) - you know what to do

(MS , HS , College) - I'm a stickler for binder etiquette

Congress:

if you treat this event like its a form of entertainment or reality TV I WILL DOWN you , you are wasting your time, your competitors time and my time

POs: I'm not gonna lie, I will be judging you the harshest - you run the chamber not me and I expect nothing but the best. Please be fair with everyone , but if I feel the PO is turning a blind eye or giving preferential treatment I will document it

Competitors: Creativity, impacts, structure and fluency are a must for me.

don't just bounce off of a fellow representatives speech, be you and create your own speech - its ok to agree tho

don't lie about sources/evidence... I will fact check

best way to get high ranks is to stay active thru the round

clash can GO a long way in this event

For direct questioning please keep it civil and no steam rolling or anything harsh, much thanks.

gestures are neato, but don't go bananas

witty banter is a plus

I only judge congress in person not online

NEVER wants to Parli a round

PF:

if y'all competitors are early to the round go ahead and do the coin flip and pre flow ... this wastes too much time both online and in person

tech or truth? Most of the time tech, but once in a while truth

I better see clash

if the resolution has loose wording, take advantage of it!!

When did y'all forget that by using definitions you can set the boundaries for the round?? With that being said, I do love me some terms and definitions

I'm all about framework and sometimes turns ... occasionally links

I don't flow during cross x , but if you feel there's something important that the judge should know.. make it clear to the judge in your following speech

I LOVE evidence... but if your doc or chain is a mess I'M going no where near it!!!

Signposting - how do I feel about this? Do it, if not I will get lost and you won't like my flow/decision

FRONTLINE in second rebuttal!! (cough, cough)

Best of luck going for a Technical Knock Out ... these are as rare as unicorns

Extend and weigh your arguments, if not.. then you're gonna get a L with your name on it

I'm ok with flex prep/time but if your opponent isn't then its a no in round - if yes don't abuse it ... same goes for open cross

When it comes to PF ... I will evaluate anything (if there's proper warranting and relevance) but if its the epitome of progressive PLZZ give a little more analysis

^ Disclosure Theory: if you have a history of disclosure then do it, if not then you will get a L from me, why? Great question, if you don't have a history of promoting fairness and being active in the debate community you have no right to use this kind of T

I'll be honest I am not a fan of paraphrasing, to me it takes away the fundamentals from impacts/evidence/arguments/debate as a whole - it lowers the value of the round overall

Speaker points - I consider myself to be very generous unless you did something very off putting or disrespectful

Easiest way to get my ballot is by using the Michael Scott rule: K.I.S "Keep It Simple"

LD:

take it easy on speed , maybe send a doc

Tech > Truth (most of the time)

links can make or break you

value/criterion - cool

P/CP - cool

stock issues - cool

K - cool

LARP - can go either way tbh

Trix/Phil/Theory - PLZ noo, automatic strike

never assume I know the literature you're referencing

CX:

I don't judge a lot of CX but I prefer more traditional arguments, but I will evaluate anything

look at LD above

PLZ send a doc

Worlds:

I expect to see clash

no speed, this needs to be conversational

don't paraphrase evidence/sources

STYLE - a simple Claim , Warrant , Impact will do just fine

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them - you don't have enough time in round

not taking any POI's makes you look silly , at least take 1

^ don't take on too many - it kills time

don't forget to extend, if you don't it a'int being evaluated

the framework debate can be very abusive or very fair ... abuse it and you will get downed

as a judge I value decorum, take that into consideration

Overall:

Should any debate round be too difficult to evaluate as is.... I will vote off stock issues

I like to consider myself a calm, cool and collected judge. I'm here doing something I'm passionate about and so are y'all - my personal opinions will never affect my judgement in any round and I will always uphold that.
If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me or ask before round - whether online or in person.

May all competitors have a great 2023-2024 season!!

Amitha Ravulapati Cary Academy 3 rounds

Marty Redmyer Bergen Debate Club 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 11, 2023 at 5:50 AM EDT

Hello hello! I’m Peyton Redmyer, she/her (but I go by Marty). I am a junior studying music performance and education at the University of Florida. I was a PF debater in high school for four years and I absolutely loved it! I’m pretty simple. Be a kind person and debate your best and you will do well with me! Good luck!

- Judging Style: I judge off of impacts (numerical 'impacts' of what would happen if I voted or did not vote for your resolution. For example: lives, money, food access, etc). Impact calculus is tasty. I never like to say never, but if you don’t give an impact to an argument, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll vote for it. Signposting and/or roadmaps(telling me ahead of time or as you speak what order in which you will be addressing things in your speech. For example: "I'll first be going over my team's case in order, then my opponent's case in order, and then my opponent's comments on our case.")are also highly encouraged. I like to see clear extension, LOVE to see plenty of evidence, and I don't flow during crossfire (so if you need me to know something said in a crossx, repeat it in a speech). I need warrants for cards, and if you tell me for have your speeches to 'extend LastName '22' I will freak out. Nothing bugs me more. Extend arguments, not authors. If it's not worth your time to actually tell me what's in the card or explain to me what it does, you probably don't need to be extending it and are wasting your breath. Lastly, I do not weigh new arguments made late in round. Summary and Final Focus are for paring down your argument and making it as clear and strong as possible. Not only is bringing up new arguments late in round abusive, but it's also just flat-out bad debating. You will lose lots and lots of speaks for it.

- Etiquette: I don’t care if you wear slippers or take your jacket off or what have you. The only thing I’m a stickler about in debate is how you treat your fellow debaters (this includes your partner!!). I was a debater too, so I understand how much work you all have put in and how important these rounds are to you. That absolutely, 100%, does not give you an excuse to be nasty. I understand a little bit of talking over each other and the like, but if you’re making the round hostile it’s very, very unlikely you will win a round I’m judging. The goal of debate is to persuade the judge(s) to your side. If you make people hate you, you’re not going to persuade anyone. This especially applies to any sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. rhetoric. So be reasonable, or I will probably give you some embarassingly low speaker points and you will probably lose the round.

*NOTE: I have tourettes! It's so mild that you most likely will not notice it, but if you see me jerk my head or make odd noises/exclamations, that is why!

I heard you the first time. Please don’t repeat the same thing over and over. I promise my ears work. Really, they do!

And don’t make new arguments in your summary or final focus, you silly goose!

Specifics (If You Need Them):

Ks - I don’t love Ks, but if your K is reasonable and you can support it, I will vote off of it. (Very rarely do I find that they're reasonable though. Just saying, it's probably in your best interest to argue the resolution). It’s up to your opponents to truly knock down a K. Just know that if you do run a K, you’re starting on your back foot with me.
Framework- I like framework sometimes. At least more often than Ks. Make sure you can support it and that it's reasonable.
Grace Periods - I’ll give you five seconds. Please don’t abuse your time. You’re not going to be able to shove much more into an argument in five seconds or less - the grace is really just designed to let you finish your sentence. If you don’t get to all you wanted to say by then - tough. Abusing time bugs me. (This also applies to prep time. I will be timing you). ((That being said, please please please don't set a timer for your opponent that rings when it ends. Don't start aggressively pointing at your time if they go over, etc. etc. I will know if they go over. I consider all of these things very rude and unprofessional, and I will dock speaks for them.))
Calling Cards - Reading your opponents cards costs prep time. Time starts when you start reading the card, stops when you stop reading it. If it takes you more than 2 minutes to find a card that was asked for, you either have the option to drop it or start taking from your prep time. I will only call cards at the end of the round if the card was (1) highly contested or (2) a debater requests for me to look at a specific card. Beyond that, figuring out card stuff is y’all’s job.
Frontlining - I’ll acknowledge frontlining if it actually has relevance to you or your opponents’ case. If it doesn't - please don’t tell me over and over that your opponent hasn’t responded to your frontline argument(s). I do not care and it will lose you points. It needs to be incredibly clear to me what the frontline applies to and why it’s necessary, or I will ignore it (and probably roll my eyes a lot).
Low-Point Wins - Aren’t something I do.
Spreading - Don't, please. (If you want more explanation on this, ask me in round. I am flexible on a lot of things if I'm given a reason to be.)

Fancy Definitions - By this I mean using hyper-specific terms for characteristics of the debate (e.g. Burden of Rejoinder). Please speak in more plain terms whenever possible. If you use a term that I would only know if I attended a debate camp or went to a private school, I will most likely understand what you mean, but what's most important is that your opponent may not understand what you mean. I think progressive style debate has many positive attributes, but I think it's also absolutely something that can disenfranchise debaters with fewer resources. If a fancy definition is not absolutely necessary to use, please speak in general terms.
Theory- Boooooooooooooo.
Speech Docs - I should be able to get everything I need from what you are audibly saying. The only thing I will be reading is my own flow and MAYBE cards if I am asked to read them. Do not send me your speech. I do not want it (and I think that asking for it of your opponent is unreasonable unless for disability purposes).
Tricks - Please don't.

TL;DR: Be respectful, don't use overly-complicated debate jargon, and do your best!

Zachary Reshovsky Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 1:52 PM EDT

Zachary Reshovsky Paradigm

Last changed 12/13 10:32P PST

About me and Overview: I have a background with 4 years as a high school debater (Lincoln Douglas) and 3 years as a collegiate debater (1 year NPDA parliamentary and 2 years NDT-CEDA Policy) at the University of Washington - Seattle. At UW, I majored in International Relations where I graduated Top 3% of class and was a Boren and Foreign Language and Area Scholar (Chinese language) and nominee for the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarship. My expertise is in China studies, US-China relations and Great Power Relations.

As an LD debater, I was (and still am) a believer in traditional LD rather than progressive LD arguments. I believe that the introduction of policy arguments to LD (in particular on resolutions that clearly resolve around moral/philosophical issues) are inappropriate. As such, I strongly prefer cases centered around a strong Value and Value/Criterion, an explanation of why that V/VC is moral, and how it links to the topic. As well, please explain to me in rebuttals why you are winning using specific articulations and spins on your/opponent's evidence. High school debaters in particular struggle with articulating why they are winning in final rebuttals, which oftentimes invites frustrating judge interventions. I will consider consider policy arguments in LD (in particular on topics that directly involve a policy proposal - e.g. "the US should implement a federal jobs guarantee" topic). However, these type of arguments will get substantial less weight than traditional LD topics. I prefer depth over breath arguments - I've noticed a lot of debaters will extend all of their offense without telling me which argument is the strongest, why I should vote on it, and how it beats out your opponents arguments. This forces me to intervene and attempt to weigh which extended arguments are strongest. In an ideal world, you'll provide me with a single argument where I can feel comfortable voting. Regarding procedurals, I have a very high threshold for Theory. I believe that Theory is vastly overused in LD and distracts from the substantive education that discussing the topic brings. Your opponent needs to be doing something truly abusive for me to consider it. I'm happy to consider Topicality arguments if I'm judging CX. In LD, I rarely see cases that are off-topic, but if you feel your opponent is feel free to run T.

As well, try to be creative! I come from a family of artists and always have looked at debate as equal parts rhetorical art and logic. Some of the best rebuttals and cases I have seen have had really creative spins on them and really sounded entertaining and compelling. I would encourage debaters to study examples of speeches in which the speaker has articulated not only a strong argument, but also delivered it in a way that delivered with rhythm, well apportioned arguments, was organized cleanly, and had substance that was comparable to strong prose in a novel rather than a rote response to a prompt.

Regarding my views on specific types of arguments:

- Primarily policy/on-case judge, but certainly willing to consider Kritikal and off-case arguments. DisAd/Ad impacts need to be spelled out clearly and weighed thoroughly in later rounds or else risk judge intervention. Find that debaters oftentimes do not get beyond surface-level tit-for-tat argumentation in later speeches in debate. No attempts made at crystallization of arguments, nor any attempt made to weigh why one impact (magnitude, timeframe, probability) or combination of impacts should OW other impacts and, equally importantly, why they should OW. Magnitude definitely easiest impact to evaluate, but feel free to do other impacts as well.

- For CPs, better to run 1 CP than many. Leaves more room for fleshing out that argument. I'm ok with Consult CPs.

- For Kritiks, I'm familiar with general arsenal of Kritiks, but please do not assume that I know the ideology/philosophy by heart. Explain it as if I am a 200-level undergrad student. Second, please articular impacts as you could an advantage or disadvantage. In particular, the link needs to be strong, specific, and very clearly linked to Case. Unmoored or vague links tend to be the death-knell of kritiks - debaters oftentimes just pull out the first link that they find and then proceed to force it to link to the case the AFF is reading. Make sure you make clear why the AFF is uniquely causing some ideologically-grounded harm or is buying into some existing detrimental framework.

Likewise, the impact of Kritiks tends to be highly nebulous (e.g. the plan causes more capitalism and capitalism is bad). Specific and clearly defined impacts are always good - they are particularly helpful for K debates.

Think of K Alternatives as very similar to a kritikal CounterPlan text - ideologically-driven condemnations that (e.g. "The AFF is evil in some undefined but scary sounding way") never work out well much like CounterPlans like (e.g. "Do the Plan but in a better way" never work). Would always recommend to debaters that they discuss why the Alternative solves or remedies some problem to a greater degree than the Plan.

- For Identity arguments, please lay out specifically how and why the AFF/NEG is engaging with a structure of power or dominance in a specific way that is problematic. That the AFF/NEG simply exists/reifies an existing power structure will get some traction yes. However, given that in order to make positive change in any environment one has to engage with unequitable power structures, it is important to describe precisely how the offending party has 1. in concrete terms, made the situation worse/more inequitable & 2. how this OW whatever benefits the offending party is accruing. Saying the offending party is simply working within existing inequities alone will not be sufficient to win usually, even when those inequities are a valid cause for concern. Again, specificity is important here - how many and in what ways is the offending party hurting disadvantaged communities.

- For Performance-based arguments on the NEG - I have a very high threshold for clearly non-Topical Perf arguments. Many teams seem to be running clearly non-topical arguments on AFF that do not in anyway link to the resolution and then proceed to claim some special framework that neatly fits/justifies their Performance into the resolution - this does not mean that they will get my ballot if the Neg runs Topicality in the 1NC.

- Likewise, for Performance-based arguments on the NEG - NEG needs to clearly win 1. why the Performance should be weighed in opposition to the AFF and within the AFF's FW. OR 2. Why whichever NEG FW that is put forth is clearly preferable. Again, I have a high threshold for clearly non-resolution specific neg performance arguments. So if the Neg wishes to win in this situation it needs to VERY CLEARLY win why a performative FW is the criterion on which the debate should be judged.

Speaking point scale:

- 29.9-30-near 100% perfect (flawless execution, strong elocution, high degree of erudition in arguments)

- 29.5-29.8-very strong debater, octo/elims performance (highly coherent arguments, well extended, effective execution and thoughtful usage of time, high degree of consideration to opponents)

- 28.8-29.4-average debater, perhaps 4-2/3-3 record level performance (better than average, but includes some dropped arguments, lack of coherency throughout debate but ultimately enough arguments are extended to win and/or come close in debate)

- 27.8-28.7 - un-average debater - unable to make coherent arguments, lots of drops, lack of tactical acumen or strategic skill in debate proper. Able to read first constructive, but unable to recognize with arguments are to be prioritized in final speeches. Relies too much on ASPEC/procedurals in place of on case/Kritikal arguments.

below-27.8 - very un-average debater - does not know how to debate and cannot coordinate correctly with partner. Lacking in basic etiquette towards others.

- Notes to debaters: Evaluation mostly dependent on quality of arguments - however, polish also comes into play. Clarity/clear organization and efficiency in rebuttals will increase your speaker points dramatically. Well run obscure and non-Western philosophies (Eg Baudrilliard, Taoism, Shintoism) will also garner extra speaker points on basis that they make judging more interesting and less monotonous/repetitive. Same thing goes for contentions that discuss innovative/non-talked about issues

FOR LD: I debated LD In high school and am comfortable with speed in it. I strongly prefer value/criterion based debate and will not consider policy arguments in LD. From my perspective it is important to win the VC debate, but not essential. I view the VC as something akin to goal posts in soccer (you can still score/gain offense through the oppositions goal posts, but it is harder to win because your opponent controls the scoring boundaries).
Ultimately, I will evaluate offense/impacts through a normal magnitude/probability/timeframe lens and will default to a Utilitarian calculus if nothing else is provided, but will weigh through whatever VC wins. I strongly prefer weighable impacts (Eg X number of people will be helped to Y degree), which creates clarity in judges mind. I see a lot of debaters (especially in LD) not doing ð˜¾ð™¡ð™šð™–ð™§ weighing of their impacts vs opponents impacts in NR And 2NR, which is unhelpful and creates judge intervention. I would strongly recommend spending at least some time in each rebuttal evaluating your impacts as to why you are winning on probability/magnitude/timeframe/vulnerability of populations affected/permanence of your impacts. As with all debate, please crystallize in final speeches with concise underviews that explain why you are winning and how your arguments OW/eclipse/precede your opponent’s impacts.

several general thoughts on LD debates I’ve seen:

- on contention level debate, please warrant out your contentions and extend claims and evidence in whole (claim, internal warrant, and impact), in particular in the rebuttals. Greater specificity is better. I’ve noticed a lot of debaters merely extend the tag lines of their evidence without the warrants/cards behind them and, more specifically, what the evidence does in debate/how I should evaluate it relative to other positions. This is problematic in that it leads to judge intervention and forces me to evaluate evidence after round. In NR/2AR I would prefer that you tell me how to vote rather than ask me to adjudicate between/weigh in on Impacts. A good rebuttal will not just include extensions of evidence, but also point to what parts of the evidence (eg the historical example that the author references, the statistical meta study that the cards author proffered) support your claims and what impacts their ideas will lead to.

- evidence: I prefer evidence that has descriptive/historical/statistical claims rather than predictive/speculative claims due to the fact that the former is based on things that have already happened/is more scientific whereas the latter has not occurred/is based on predilections that may or may not occur. I will prefer the former over the latter absent an argument made to differentiate the two. Expert authors will be preferred to non-experts in a vacuum. Non-contextualized anecdotal evidence is the least preferred type of evidence.

- AFF strategy: I notice a lot of debaters (in particular on the affirmative) have a difficult time extending sufficient offense in the debate to stay in the running. I would strongly recommend extending your arguments/contentions first (esp in the 1AR where there is a timeskew) before moving on to opponents case. Inexperienced debaters tend to get distracted/overwhelmed by their opponents case and attempt to tackle it first, but end up running out of time to extend their own case after getting bogged down in said opponents arguments. The best offense is a good offense - you can win if you extend your claims and leave some of your opponents claims dropped, but you cannot win if you extend none of your claims but shoot down the majority of your opponents arguments. I would strongly recommend starting out with your case first in rebuttals and then moving to refute your opponents case.

The Affirmative needs to be even more strategic/efficient in the 2AR. The 2AR needs to focus down on one to two arguments they are winning and not attempt to cover the entire flow. Past losing 2ARs I have seen have spread themselves too thin and never told me where to vote. In order to ensure that you get your offense on the flow, I would recommend a 20/30 second overview at the top of the 2AR explaining why/where you are winning and where I should vote. This ensures you have a shot at winning even if you do not get to all points you wish to discuss in this short 3 minute speech.

- Timeskew: By default, I will give the affirmative somewhat more room than negative to make less well developed/consistently extended arguments due to the timeskew (The Neg won 52.37% of ballots according to a meta analysis of 17 TOC debate tournaments in 2017-18). Beyond this, if the AFF argues that their arguments should have a lower burden of proof bc of timeskew, I will give the AFF even more room to make blippy arguments.

Kritiks (General): Im a fan of Ks in LD. Unlike Policy arguments that have crept into LD (Plans/CPs/DisAds), I believe that Ks belong in LD on the basis that they are grounded in philosophy rather than practical politics.

Several observations/suggestions for Ks in LD:

- On the Link level, please make a clear link to something your opponent specifically does in her/his case. I've noticed that a lot of Kritikal debaters rely on very generic links (e.g. saying that the AFF proposes a policy, the policy involves Capitalism, and that Capitalism is bad, therefore you should reject the AFF) rather than an indictment of some aspect of the AFF's specific proposal (e.g. the AFF's plan proposes an increase in mandatory minimum sentencing, this will lead to a higher prison population, prisons disproportionately affect minority populations and are therefore structurally racist, mass incarceration is the warrant, therefore you should reject the AFF because they lead to more structural racism). The former example relies on generic appeal to a structure the AFF exists within/likely would have to exist within in order to implement policy, the latter explicitly outlines what specifically the AFF does to increase racism/violence. If and at all possible, please try to articulate what the opponent explicitly does to warrant your K.

- On the Alt, I have noticed that many people who run Ks have a very vague (and at times non sensical) Alternatives—in the past I have voted against Ks often because of their lack of Alt solvency. If you plan on running a K, please make clear what the Alt does and how the Alt can solve/lead to some substantive change better than AFF can. I have a very difficult time voting for Alts when I don't know what they do. I would recommend making specific empirical examples of movements that align with Alt’s views that have succeeded in the past (eg if you’re running an Alt that wants to deconstruct settler colonialism, point to historical examples of Native movements that dislodged colonialism or the effects of colonialism—for example protests against the DACA pipeline in S Dakota, Native Americans protests against Columbus Day + what meaningful and lasting policy/public opinion changes these movements imbued). Its my personal belief that movements that lead to most meaningful change not only indicts and identifies a policy/problem with the status quo, but is also able to engage with the political sphere and implement some meaningful change. I believe that a well-articulated K should be able to do the same.

- K Impact: If K Impact involves some degree of indictment of the AFF, please explain to me what the AFF indictment does/leads to out of round beyond merely asserting that the AFF leads to bad impacts - otherwise it is likely that I will default to voting AFF on basis that AFF does/advocates for something imperfect but net positive. Even winning that the Aff leads to bad things (eg that the AFFs deployment of military forces is imperialist/that AFFs passing of a policy leads to more capitalism) may be insufficient to win when weighed against the entirety of AC impacts — the K also needs to prove THAT they do something beneficial as well (see previous paragraph).

- Type of K you run: You are of course welcome to run any K you feel is strategically valuable in the moment. As a personal side note, I personally prefer hearing Ks that come from obscure/not-commonly-run philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Deleuze, St. Thomas Aquinas) rather than commonly-understood philosophies (e.g. Capitalism). I believe that introducing non-traditional philosophers into debate adds substance, flavor, and argumentative diversity to the debate sphere - Independent on whether they win, I will reward debaters who run these arguments with additional speaker points for the above mentioned reasons.

Race/Gender/Transphobic/Homophobic Kritikal indicts - I will consider indictments of an opponent on the basis that they have done said something racist, gendered, -phobic in their personal behavior. The indictment, however, needs to clearly documented (e.g. a screen shotted Facebook post, a accusation with references to multiple witnesses who can corroborate the incident) and the offending violation/action needs to fall into the category of commonly understood violations of norms of basic decency surrounding race/gender (eg a racist joke that would be called out at a dinner party, usage of the N word towards a debater of color, calling a female debater the B-word, usage of the six letter homophobic/anti-gay term that starts with F). Microaggressions will be considered, but will have a much higher burden of proof to overcome because they are more difficult to prove/document and have comparatively less negative impact. As well, these arguments preferable should be accompanied by an articulation of what Impact of dropping a debater will have (e.g. will it send a strong sanctioning signal to other debater generally to not make the joke in question in the future(?), will it merely deter the accused debater from another repeated violation(?)) outside of round. Without an articulation of framework, I will default to a standard VC framework in LD and Policymaking Impact calculus on basis of magnitude/probability/TF in CX - if you lose/fail to provide a non-traditional framework, this does not mean that your race/gender arguments will not be evaluated, but does mean you will have to explain how they work/function under a CXmaking/VC framework and likely means you will face a comparatively uphill battle.

Speed Ks-please do not run them - I don’t believe they are worth considering and are a waste of time. After having come across them 3-4 times this year, have not voted for a speed K. Unless opponent is literally spreading so fast no they are unintelligible, I believe that it is unwise to spend all our time and energy indicting each other for procedurals when we could be debating about the substantive of the topic.

I am not a fan of Performance/poetry in LD, but will consider it if absolutely necessary. Know that I have a high BoP to consider these types of args.
I generally have a very low bar to granting the AFF RVIs due to timeskew. I have granted AFF RVIs about 70-80% of the time when the AFF has introduced this argument.

Mishaal Said Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu March 14, 2024 at 4:37 AM +08

I'm a former university debater and currently a post-grad student-judge with 7 years of experience in judging various debate formats. I have graduated high school last 2015. I have judged parliamentary debates (British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, Canadian Parliamentary, and Parliamentary Debate) since uni, having judged 20+ parliamentary debate out rounds. I have extensive experience in judging other debate formats such as Worlds Schools, Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, IPDA, NPDA, and Congress. I also have extensive experience in judging speech formats as well such as Impromptu, After-Dinner Speaking, Poetry, Extemporaneous, Informative Speech, and Persuasive Speech. For more information, you may email me at mishaalcsaid@gmail.com

I'm okay with spreading.

Theory: I'm open to theory arguments being ran as long as they are tied back to how it is relevant to the resolution and impacts are provided

Kritiks: Openly welcomed given that they are linked to the resolution and impacts are provided

Speed: I can track speeches regardless of pace and speed.

Complexity of arguments: I'm open to arguments of varying complexity.

Arguments and rebuttals of varying breadth and depth are generally welcomed as long as they are tied to the resolution.

Public Forum

Speed: Okay with varying pace and speed

Preference of arguments: None specific, as long as they are explained well and their impacts are proven

K's and theory arguments: Open so long as their impacts are proven

Tech > truth: I will evaluate the argument/s provided that the logic and impacts are proven and the opponents' arguments are engaged and rebutted

Evidence: Direct quotations on trustworthy sources and statistics are highly welcomed especially when they are linked to proving the extent of the harms and benefits of your case or your opponents'

CX, Crossfire, Grand crossfire: Questions that cast a shadow of doubt to the opponents' case are welcome. Be creative and sneaky.

Summary and FF: Should be consistent and evolve with the progression of arguments and rebuttals raised during the debate. Evaluation of questions and responses during CX and crossfire should be integrated as well, if necessary.

Madhu Sennerikuppam Saline High School 4 rounds None

Evelynn Shafer SF Roosevelt Independent 3 rounds

Tao Song Boston Latin School 3 rounds None

Aparna Srinivasan Interlake HS

Luisa Tauro Princeton Independent 3 rounds

Joel Thursam West Bloomfield High School 1 rounds None

James Tian Thomas S. Wootton HS 3 rounds

Ogundare Tobi Nova Institute 6 rounds

SR Turimalla Interlake HS 3 rounds

Elita Uch VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy 6 rounds

Adithya Vaidyanathan Potomac Debate Academy 6 rounds

Kira Waldhalm Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 6:56 PM CDT

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

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

pronouns: she/her/they/them

General debate preferences:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln Douglas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Forum:

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

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

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

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

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

Benjamin Walter Hire 6 rounds

Marshall Wilcox Interlake HS 1 rounds

Meichi Wu Hire 6 rounds

Yiwen Wu Sidwell Independent 6 rounds

Dunia Zawideh West Bloomfield High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 9:25 PM PDT

I’ve been coaching for West Bloomfield High School and judging for 7 years. I do not like to intervene and put my personal opinions into the debate. It is up to the debaters to decide how the round will go and to back up their claims through sufficient evidence and reasoning.

DECORUM

Above all else, you are learning and growing as debaters. Any abusive or overly competing behavior does nothing for the educational activity that debate is intended to be.

I do not like when debaters cut each other off during CX. This is a time to understand your opponents case, how are you going to do that if you won’t let them finish their response to the question YOU asked? Keep it down to questions, this is not time to argue. I prefer you address your opponents'caseinstead of addressing them directly.

SPEED

When I'm judging, I don't get to ask you clarification questions in the round like your opponents do, so -- above all else -- prioritize being understood by ME and not just trying to read fast so you have more on the flow. Remember, for me to flow it, I have to be able to listen to and understand what you're going for; prioritize clarity over speed.

Do NOT spread (speed-read). Anything over 300 wpm (look up a video for reference) is "speeding". It's not like I can stop you from speed-reading, but I only flow the things I can listen to AND understand, not just the remnants of things you vaguely enunciated at 10000mph. I don't care if you've disclosed your entire speech verbatim; if you can't read that speech in a way that I can understand without me looking at your disclosed speech doc, you'll have a tough time with the flow.

SPEECHES

Please signpost your arguments! "Signposting" is stating what argument you're responding to before you start responding to it. It helps to organize and understand what you say for both your opponents and the judge.

Cross-examinations: I have always thought CXs were the most important part of any debate round, so listen closely. If you or your opponent say something in VERY stark contrast to your case, that goes on my ballot. Essentially, anything that raises a big red flag goes on the flow. This, however, does not happen often and can be arbitrary since there's no definitive scale for what's considered "in stark contrast" to a case. Thus, your best bet is to mention anything from CX that's of importance in a speech as soon as possible to ensure it gets on my flow.If you ask good questions & are polite here, I typically give high speaks.

STYLE

I'm a mix of Tech and Truth judging. Tech means judging exclusively on what's said in the round; Truth means judging based on how true your args are to the real world. I think any good judge should consider both -- it can prevent debaters from substantiating args that are exceedingly unrealistic but also holds debaters accountable for making realistic args (or at the very least, bringing them up at the appropriate time).

I fact-check any and all "Truths" before I use them in a decision. If it's highly controversial, out of date, or not concrete enough, I just don't use it in voting and default to whatever you told me in the round. In other words, unless you literally have me trembling in utter fear about being nuked to extinction/pandemic'd to oblivion/whatever, I'm probably going to factor in the more realistic impact.

THEORY & Kritiks

Preferably not in PF... Theory/Ks maybe, but it should be topical and relevant by the time you bring it up. I would vote for theories/kritiks if they're outstandingly clear, but I should be shaking in my boots at the mere thought of not voting for your theory/K.No tricks whatsoever-- they're super abusive and I'm not voting on that.

PET PEEVES

Please do not say "Judge, we've won this debate," because you don't know that.

When you are done with your speech, let me know by saying some variation of "we urge a (pro/con) ballot" or some indicator that you are done. Otherwise I might just think you are taking a long pause.

TLDR

Don’t be an abusive jerk and you’ll be fine.

Victor Zhang International Academy Central 6 rounds

Login to Tabroom

University of Michigan HS Debate Tournament

2023 — Ann Arbor, MI/US

Public Forum Paradigm List

Judges