*updated for student loans topic*

if you have any additional questions please ask in round or click this link for a full 10 page paradigm

Hello, my good name is Ishan Abu. I am from a distant land and am on a H1B1 visa. I came to this land to manifest my destiny. English is my 9th language ;-; I have been studying the art of public forum debate for eons; however, I am very old as I am a senior (citizen) in hs so i forgot everything :(This is my third time judging.

So to begin:

DISCLAIMER: this may or may not be all satire

---------

Speaks go up up uppity if including but not limited to:
- I will boost speaks if cross is extremely heated.
- Tell me where you are in the flow throughout your speech, i.e. signpost. (I don't know what a flow is).
- Beat me in an arm wrestle (b4 or after round)
- Utilize rhetorical and literary devices and the scientific method.
- Flip the table/chair to add pathos
- Swear to emphasize dire matters (anything)
- Using the word "bigly"
- Pre-round and/or post-round (please post-round if you can tell the debate was messy)
- Not speaking at the speed of sound
- Speaking at the speed of light (if comprehensible)
- Show a funny tiktok
- State that your opponents are yapping and/or are d1 yappers
- If you drop case and just try to win with turns
- Give offtime roadmaps <3
- Impact out to nuke war
- formal clothing theory lol
- etc.

----------

As I can barely understand English due to a lack of braincells and mental capacity, email cases/speech docs before round starts as well as any cards that are used (if the cards are asked for). ADD me on the email chain!!! I can type generally faster than most but still do it regardless. If you do indeed want to speak at the speed of light make sure to especially do this. Feel free to speak however you'd like i.e. persuasively, robotic, loud, quiet, etc. as well as through any means i.e. rap, poetry, etc. There is indeed a very expansive difference between being toxic and being debaters, but as to my knowledge... there is none :O (which I don't mind). Keep track of your prep time even though time is just a social construct. During the round if it is apparent that you are indeed getting absolutely destroyed, most likely it will be apparent on my face. In general though don't think soley because of facial expressions that you are at all going to win or lose especially if you don't adhere to the poem below.

----------

Furthermore, if you'd like to bring any progressive debate thingies up i.e. theory, k's, plans/cps, fw, tricks, etc. feel free to. In relation to FW, if you run it, make sure most of your points actually relate and/or revolve around the FW. If you don't respond to a FW that is put on you, that's very tickling, and will make it so my view on the round is based off of said FW. In relation to theory, I'm pretty variable on how I evaluate it depending on the extent of what the interp, violation, standards, etc. are. If I hear some type of theory and deem it valid I'll let you know, same with if I don't so that you don't waste time on it. I js realized I am most likely judging novies and chances are none of this is going to be a reality so mb if you js wasted time reading all that... but I mean better safe than sorry. Furthermore, truth over truth... there is no tech unless there's tech. In fact, feel free not to debate with technology and speaks will also go up up uppity. I am very much tech over tech as well as truth over truth but sometimes truth over tech while being tech over truth. Tell me what you want in round, if both sides agree, that's what I'll do. If you don't then I'll default to how I usually judge, which is

----------

You can bring up very random arguments as long as they have some type of warrant. It can be so quirky and wild that even I might not believe it. Unlike some judges, I will make sure not to intervene AT ALL, meaning as long as you extend said arguments with actual reasoning or wtv throughout the round, I will vote on it without any bias (and ofc if you're winning it lol). On evidence, if they are conflicting, convince me as to why yours is better than theirs. And if the evidence is complete gas and wrecks their entire case, capitalize on it and tell me why it's so blasphemous-ly amazing. Ask for cards if you think what your opponent is saying is very... suspect. Do not ask for cards on simple analytics unless they sound far fetched like this: 2+2=4 (it equals 5.) On analytics or even case, if the linkage between your thoughts are sneaky and epitomizing a clear and excellent display of topic knowledge you get 30 speaks. Oh also please extend case thingies throughout the flow if you want them to make it to final focus (turns, links, etc.) . If you bring up something out of no where when it wasn't extended throughout speeches, I'm gonna assume that you want to lose. Same with dropping args without putting defense on it. Also don't waste a set amount of time for a case extension on any speech, at most all I need are narratives (a lil storytime) that tells me where to vote and why. I will disclose if yall want me to... but... on everything... if yall have the most jaw dropping, convulsing, mentally tickling, and all in all appalling round ever and I genuinely can't decide, you're gonna have to rock paper scissors it out (2 outta 3) for who ever gets the dub as judge intervention bad! (if you wanna post round here feel free to do so).

----------

Most importantly, weigh your impacts. Do this comparatively if possible. Make sure they are very obese. It will make it very hard for your opponents to eat up, which will leave you with the W.

IN OTHER WORDS ->

weigh

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

- Elmo prolly

(On a fact that is most extra califragilisticexpialidocious-ly real... any type of hate speech will get you dropped.)

I'm new to debate and this is my second tournament as an adjudicator. I expect that you respect your teammates and competitors. I prefer data, facts and quotes to back up logical arguments. I'm looking forward to listening to your debates.

I am a former varsity PF debater for Eastview High School. While I like to take an analytical approach to judging debate, I can follow technical debate and will enjoy it if it's argued well. With that being said, while perfect technical skill can give you a large advantage in my round, perfect warranting wins it.

I generally dislike K cases, but if you warrant and argue it better than your opponents can refute it, I will flow it through in the round.

I don’t accept any theory at all. Any clear attempt at theory will be instantly struck off my flow. I will only judge points that relate to the debate at hand. If you have a serious concern with the actions or words of another debater, please approach me about it privately either after a speech has ended, or after the round.

Speed:
As a judge, if you spread (read super fast), I will be way less likely to understand all the points you are trying to tell me. I can understand if you have a naturally faster speaking speed, but abusing your speaking speed in order to put more evidence onto your flow will not win you the round in my eyes.

Evidence:
Warranting is very important in debate, and will contribute more to my flow. If you can not explain to me WHY your argument is true, I will have no reason to agree with your points. When you extend evidence cards (please do this), explain to me what your evidence says about your argument besides just citing the author.

As well as this, you should be weighing your arguments and impacts throughout the round. Examine the real meaning behind your case. Help me to understand why your arguments and impacts matter more than what your opponents have to offer.

Speaker points:
I will assign speaker points based solely on how you perform in the debate. However, I will not hesitate to subtract points for any form of rude behavior. I understand debates can be intense at times, but please be respectful to your opponents. Good performance in speeches, quality questions, respectful behavior, etc. will increase your point totals in increments.

Misc.

• If you need help with anything during the round, please don’t be afraid to ask, just not during a speech.
• I will keep track of prep time, but I also ask that you keep track of it and correct me if needed.
• If you want me to give you some advice in person after the round, I am perfectly fine with giving you tips. With that being said, I will not give an oral RFD under any circumstances.

And most importantly, have fun!

Hello! I'm Varshini Bomma (Pronouns: She/Her) . I'm a senior at Eagan High School and this is my 4th year competing in Public Forum debate. I know all the logistics of PF debate so don't fret.

Judging

I am definitely a flow judge, I will only judge what is on the flow. I will judge clear and logical arguments that are extended throughout the round. With that being said, I will not flow crossfire so if you make a really good argument in cross, make sure to bring it up in a speech so I can have it written down on my flow!

Please don't run theory.

Weighing

PLEASE WEIGH! I can only make a decision on who to vote for if you tell me WHY your arguments matter to me. Extend your impacts and use weighing mechanisms to do so effectively.

Reminder to be respectful to your opponents and partner at ALL TIMES and HAVE FUN!!! :)

Don't judge a book by a cover. I'm a parent judge. Support your arguments with evidence, extend your arguments to the end, debate respectably with passion, no spreading, I appreciate signposts, make it easy for me to flow, and enjoy the experience.

Hi there! Good morning.

I am a second year public forum parent judge.

Your goal is to effectively communicate your arguments to me. If you are talking too fast to be intelligible, you are not effectively communicating - don't spread.

I'm not a flow judge, obviously, but I take notes. I pay attention to every speech and cross.

Attitude / Aggression
This is a PF debate. We are human beings and citizens of the world. Aggression is okay, but a rude/offensive behavior is a no-no.

HOW I DECIDE MY BALLOTS:
* Use your Summary and Final Focus speeches to collapse and crystallize your key points.
* USE CROSS WISELY. This is typically where I make my decision. I pay attention both to how strongly you're able to respond to the opponents’ questions with evidence and analysis. I will also judge based on how effectively you are able to break the opponents arguments with your questions.

Speaker Points:

I default at a 27.5, and change them after every speech to finalize them.

All the best!

Treat me as a flay judge. I pay attention to what is going on in the flow but at the same time, I prefer the lay appeal and narrative style of argument.

Weigh, Weigh, Weigh. Make the ballot easy for me to write and weigh your cases and impacts and show me that they are better than your opponents.

As for speed, I can handle speed but at the same time, I'm not gonna be happy to hear full-out policy spreading in a PF round.

I would not suggest running theory on me but if warranted properly and the theory itself is not abusive then I will consider it in a round. If you run disclosure theory, say goodbye to your speaks.

I fully believe in truth over tech.

Firstly, I learned most about debate from my coach Bryce Piotrowski. His opinions have shaped much of what I believe about debate and his paradigm can be found here.

Currently an assistant coach at Lakeville High School. I competed for them for 4 years and most competed in public forum on the national and local circuit.

Add me to the chain kentandrew957@gmail.com

Update for the Golden Desert Tournament this weekend:

I would encourage the debaters to send full constructive and rebuttal documents because of the biggest waste of time I have found in pf comes from calling for evidence. This makes the round much more efficient and overall a better use of the debate space then waiting for evidence that could have been all sent at once. Moreover, I think that the rounds in which include full documents of shared evidence allows for more clash and more educational debates in general.

Tech> truth if you need to contact me for any accommodations(kentandrew957@gmail.com)

** As long as national circuit tournaments continue to be online I expect that debaters are sending me at MINIMUM their constructives, but if you send all speech docs throughout the round that's completely acceptable too.

I will drop unethical evidence ethics. This is one of my biggest pet peeves are teams that read paraphrased evidence and think it's fine, then they either can't send a card or they will send me a link which I don't want to read. Just read cut evidence please!!

Speed:

I can handle basically anything. If you plan on spreading just don't. However, if this is your only strategy then anything over 250 wpm send me your doc.

Rebuttal:

For second rebuttal please please please front line offensive arguments at least. I would prefer collapsing. Moreover, I would prefer if you do not read an entire offensive overview in your second or first rebuttal that is a contention long because it is not strategic and will make me sad.

Summary and final focus:

They should mirror each other. Anything that is extended from summary is expected to be in final focus. Also, please oh god please weigh in these speeches. PReferably in both of them because it makes my job as the judge much much easier.

Speaker points:

My average will probs for most rounds be 29. I think that speaker points are honestly quite subjective and stupid. However, the more strategic your choices you make throughout the round the higher or lower it will go.

Theory/ Progressive arguments

I don't have that much experience with it at all. If you plan on running something that is not topical you should plan on not doing that.

I will not evaluate trix or any frivolous theory. I.E. I want the violation to actually be legitimate enough for me to actually want to vote off of. This would include disclosure(more info below) and paraphrase would def recommend to check back against abusive evidence ethics.

K's I think are really interesting to listen to, however, my experience with these arguments are very limited and don't have a ton of knowledge. This means that the more philo the arg is, the more likely I'm not going to know what is going on. As long as you explain the argument slowly, I should be fine.

Along with this I would encourage you to to disclose your cases on either the Wiki or email to your opponents. The reason why I enjoy it is because it seems as though the norm of PF is to run wack cases and have the opponents not have blocks to it. I think just overall disclosure makes for better debates and more educational ones.

Miscellaneous:

Have fun. You can wear whatever I literally don't care. I will give you 20's and L for any arguments that are exclusive to anyone in the round or outside of it.

I think that flex prep is pretty groovy, so if everyone is OK with this than lets do it.

Hello, I am a fourth year parent judge with lots of experience on the MN local circuit. Here are the main things I care about. Outside of these, feel free to use your creativity and discretion to sway me towards your arguments.

**IF YOU RUN NUCLEAR WAR ON STUDENT LOAN DEBT I’M NOT VOTING FOR YOU**

• Mind your speed - this is not a speed reading competition. It is hard to keep up with your ideas if all my focus is spent trying to keep up with the words. Moreover, if I don’t understand what you say, it’s hard to give you points!
• Truth over tech. I value well though-out analytics equally as much as empirics.
• Keep it respectful during round. Disrespecting the other team or mean behavior will not be tolerated.
• I take notes throughout the round, including cross. So don’t worry if I’m scribbling away when you are speaking. I’m listening.
• Regardless of the validity or logic of an argument/contention (or lack thereof), I will buy it if the other side does not challenge it.
• I do not buy any theories, Ks, or any sort of technical tricks used in round. I expect you to debate the resolution.

Finally, while impact is obviously important, I am almost never swayed by the prospect of all of us dying in 2030 because of global warming, nor do I expect us all to die of nuclear strike at the drop of a hat. Nuanced arguments are more valuable as they are more real-world.

Good luck, and feel free to ask me for feedback at the end of the round if you want it :)

I am a parent judge. (do not run theory k's tricks etc I will not vote for you)

Please articulate your arguments concisely and convincingly with relevant evidence from credible sources.

Please attempt to persuade your points slowly and avoid using jargon. You will win only if you can convince me so I am your key audience.

Be respectful (otherwise I will dock speaker points) to your opponents, and avoid talking over each other during crossfire. I will only flow impactful arguments made during crossfire.

Please keep track of your prep and I will stop flowing when speech time is up.

Good luck and have fun.

I have been judging debate in MN regularly since at least 2004. I judge at invitationals, Sections, NatQuals, and State. I started judging LD debate, but as PF has grown in MN, I now judge mostly PF debate. I also started coaching PF in 2017.

When judging debate I want you, the debaters, to prove to me why you should win my ballot. I listen for explanations as to WHY your contention is stronger or your evidence more reliable than the opponents' contention/evidence. Just claiming that your evidence/arguments are better does not win my ballot. In other words, I expect there to be clash and clear reasoning.

I listen carefully to the evidence entered in to the debate to make sure it matches the tag you have given it. If a card is called by the other team, it better have a complete source cite and show the quoted material either highlighted or underlined with the rest of the words there. The team providing the card should be able to do so expeditiously. I expect that author, source, and date will be presented. Author qualifications are very helpful, especially when a team wants to convince me their evidence is stronger than the opponents. The first time the ev is presented, it needs to be the author’s words, in context, and NOT paraphrased. Later paraphrased references in the round, of course, is a different story.

The affirmative summary speech is the last time new arguments should be entered in the debate.

If arguments are dropped in summaries, they are dropped from my flow.

When time expires for a speech, I stop flowing.

I expect that debaters should understand their case and their arguments well enough that they can explain them clearly and concisely. If a debater cannot respond effectively to case questions in Cross Fire, that does not bode well.

I expect debaters to show respect for each other and for the judge. Rude behavior will result in low speaker points.

PF and LD are separate debate events, but I don't think my view as a judge changes much between the two activities. I want to hear the resolution debated. If one side basically avoids the resolution and the other side spends some time answering those arguments PLUS supporting their case on the resolution, I will likely lean towards the side that is more resolutional. In other words, if one side chooses to run something that does not include looking at the pros and cons of the actual resolution, and chooses to ignore the resolution for the majority of the debate, that choice probably won't bode well for that team.

I only give oral critiques and disclose when required to in out-rounds. I promise I will give a thorough RFD on my ballot.

Hello! I’m an assistant coach in PF at Eagan High School. I debated PF for 4 years in high school.

I use they/them pronouns. Please check your emails from Tabroom for your opponents' pronouns and don't purposefully misgender people.

I prefer fewer, well-explained arguments to ten poorly warranted contentions. Please explain your warrants logically as well as just stating evidence. I won't easily vote for an argument that I don't understand; although I ultimately vote off the flow, the clarity and reasonability of an argument will help you a lot, especially if it's close.

Don’t be rude. I’m not impressed by how loudly you can talk over your opponent in crossfire. Try to have fun (it’s just debate, guys) but failing that, don’t stop your opponent from having fun.

Do not speak or whisper during anyone else's speech. If you want to talk to your partner, write it down or message them, but it's rude to speak or whisper while someone else is talking and I don't know how it became such a norm. Additionally, do not speak to your partner during your own speech. I will dock speaks every single time I see this happen and it will be cumulative.

Please weigh. Weighing means comparing your impact to your opponent's, and specifically telling me why yours is more important. For example, don't just say "We outweigh on magnitude because our impact is 900 million people in poverty." I know that 900 million people in poverty is bad, but so is nuclear war. Tell me that you outweigh on probability because a recession is significantly more likely than a nuclear war. Bonus points if you weigh weighing mechanisms (for example, tell me why I should vote based on probability instead of timeframe).

I’m honestly not that fast at flowing, and I often don’t get authors/sources. I’ll do my best, but if you just say “Remember Feinstein” and move on, I probably don’t remember Feinstein, and I can’t vote off something I don’t remember. Explain stuff to me in every single speech.

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will most likely not vote on any other kind of theory. I don't understand it and even if I did try to evaluate it, my decision would probably not make sense. If the round has an accessibility issue (ex. your opponent is using harmful/discriminatory language), you can point it out to me in a speech and/or respectfully ask your opponent to change their behavior in crossfire, you don't need all the fancy formatting.

When your time is up, finish your sentence (in a reasonably concise way) and be done. If you go 5sec over, I’ll stop flowing. Once you hit 20sec over, I will verbally cut you off. Please don’t make me do that. If your opponents are consistently going 10+ seconds over, I’m probably gonna be more lenient with you on speech times, but don’t take it too far either.

Anyways, don’t stress, don’t be rude, you’ll do great :)

I am a senior at the University of St. Thomas. I have participated in 2 years of public forum debate, during my high school career. This is my second year of judging public forum debate.

When it comes to debating, I strongly value speaking. I really appreciate debaters who speak calmly and collectively, rather than at a rapid pace. Likewise, I encourage signposting as much as possible in speeches.

I tend to give the win to the team who makes it easiest for me to flow.

Pronouns: He/Him

General

I'm currently a sophomore at St. Olaf College.

email: tejasandyanni@gmail.com

Public Forum

Since I haven't debated (or flowed for that matter) in quite a while, I'll need you to go at a slower pace. It's up to you to ensure I understand what's happening.

Second rebuttal MUST frontline the defense and offense on the arguments you're going for. Any argument that is not responded to in second rebuttal is considered dropped from the flow.

Defense needs to be brought up in summary in order for me to evaluate it in final focus.

Please weigh, and make it comparative. it makes the round so much easier to evaluate.

Extra

Being rude and disrespectful is an easy way to tank speaker points, and may even cost you the round.

Please add me to the email chain (sunitha.peram@gmail.com)

I like it when the speakers are loud, crisp, and clear. I need to be able to understand what they are saying, they need to be clear about what points they are arguing for. I prefer that they don't use fancy words, and explain in ways that any person would understand.

Weighing in round is important, and beneficial to your points. I also love comparison of impacts. Tell me why I should choose your impact over the opponents.

In summary, really tell me why I should vote for you and not the opponents. Extend your points, weigh, and compare impacts.

Most importantly, everyone should be respectful and give everyone the chance to speak in cross, without speaking over others.

I'm excited to learn more and see everyone progress as the season moves forward. Good luck everyone!

Last update: December 2022; a few clarifications, a few additions based on things that have come up recently, removed bullets that were specific to virtual debates (long may they remain unnecessary)

Debate Background and General Info:

I did PF for four years in high school (I graduated in 2014). I consider myself a flow judge, but I will still drop for offensive or inappropriate behavior or rules/ethics violations even if you "win" on the flow. Details on my preferences below, I'm also happy to answer questions before the round.

Details

1. Frontlining: In most rounds you should probably be spending at least a minute on your side of the flow if you are giving the second rebuttal, but I'm willing to be a little more generous in how I flow a "response" given the time constraint (e.g. I would view saying "cross-apply Card XYZ from my response to their C2" without the full level of analysis/impact as a full response, assuming you did actually give a full response to their C2). A good rebuttal that covers the entire flow will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

2. I like to see the round start to condense in Summary, but I understand that in some rounds you need to cover at least part of the flow line-by-line. I leave it up to your strategic discretion how to balance those two approaches; similar to above I will reward you with higher speaker points if you can effectively respond to key points made in the rebuttals but also start to crystallize the round.

3. I like creative arguments, I don't like non-resolutional arguments (and I won't vote for non-topical arguments). If you aren't sure how I would categorize the argument you are planning to run I'm happy to answer questions before the round.

4. If you are giving me "voters" still tell me where you are on the flow.

5. You should be responding to the specific warrants within your opponent's contentions, not just to the taglines.

6. Signpost. Extend arguments fully. Weigh. Impact. Don't be rude.

7. I'll assume CBA if neither side has an alternative framework. Don't introduce a new framework out of nowhere late in the round.

8. I don't flow CX, so you should mention important points in your next speech. I am still paying attention though, so don't lie and say something was said in crossfire that wasn't.

9. I'm really not a fan of offensive overviews in the first rebuttal that don't relate to anything said in the constructives. I'll still flow it, I might even vote on it, but you will probably get lower speaker points if you're doing this.

10. My default speaker point score is 27; I will move up or down from that based on if you impress or disappoint me relative to my expectations for the tournament/pool (i.e. a Novice 29 is not equivalent to a Varsity 29).

11. I don't usually have an issue with speed in PF, so unless you are an outlier you are probably fine. That being said, if your entire speech consists of blippy, one-sentence cards I am probably going to miss some of them if you are going fast.

12. I hate evidence exchanges that take forever. At a minimum you should be able to show them the card immediately because you just read it. I get it might take a minute to pull up the article, but part of your prep should be organizing your evidence in a way that makes it easy to find in round. We shouldn't be sitting around for 5 minutes waiting for you to find something.

13. If you are doing an email chain, I'd like to be on it, BUT I will probably only look at it if there is a question raised in the round as to what a card actually says. I don't view the email chain as a substitute for a clear flow, and I don't want to spend a ton of time reading through your cards if I don't have to.

Personal Pet Peeves: (I won't drop you for doing something on this list. But if you want a 30 these are some things to avoid):

1. I seem to judge a lot of teams that are rolling their eyes or openly scoffing at things their opponents say. Don't do this. Maybe their argument really is bad, but that's my job to decide, not yours. I will dock your speaks if you do this.

2. Spending significant time in all speeches and crossfires on a framework debate and then using an unrelated framework (or no framework at all) to weigh the round in FF.

3. Yelling. I've really never understood why people think this is necessary.

4. Having one mega-contention with a bunch of unrelated subpoints. If your subpoints don't relate to each other they should be separate contentions.

5. Saying "Partner ready?" before you start your speech. If you are stopping prep it's assumed your partner is ready.

6. Talking to or passing notes to your partner during speeches and/or solo crossfires. You have prep time for a reason, you should make sure you are on the same page before you start speaking.

7. Speeches that go over time, especially in Varsity. I will stop flowing once time is up, so trying to squeeze in one more card when you are 10 seconds over isn't going to help you and I will dock speaks for this.

For Last Chance Qualifiers:

• Start the chain as soon as possible. My email is further down
• I'm tired. It's the end of the year. Please don't just blip through your prewritten extensions in summary without contextualizing anything, that would make me sad. This is also my first tournament judging this topic so don't expect me to understand everything if you speed read through complex arguments. You do yourself a favor by slowing down on the arguments that take our your opponents
• Rebuttal is the time to go silly with your 500 turns case args, but I will not be happy if you extend all into the Summary. Just go for the one that was undercovered and impact it out
• Pet peeve: While I've been helping my team prep, I don't know all the acronyms and won't be looking up any that I don't understand. If it's never clarified what an acryonym stands for, sorry but I can't vote for it
• Go crazy with the impacts but don't expect me to vote for you just because you mentioned nuke war. If I can't follow the link chain then I won't vote for it
• Please don't prep steal. Keep your camera on when your opponent is sending over evidence and keep your hands in view. This was one of the most frustrating things for me when I was debating, and Iwill penalize teams who don't adhere to this. Send speech docs before every speech so that this doesn't happen
• I'm cool with Ks but I'm not super familiar with the literature - so go slow and explain it. If I don't understand it I won't vote for it
• Theory is good and creates good norms. If people didn't lose on disclosure theory then they wouldn't disclose. If people didn't lose on paraphrasing theory they would paraphrase. While I'll do my best to be tab on these topics, just know that I strongly believe in disclosure and am very against paraphrasing. That being said, I won't be happy if you read an OS vs first three-last three disclosure shell, good is good enough

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Tech > Truth. Win on the flow, that's all. Debate is a game, make crazy choices and you'll be rewarded if done well. I don't care much about cross, it won't play a role in my decision unless brought up in a speech. Anything you say after your timer runs out, even if it's a second over, will not be on my flow

Making the round unique/interesting will be rewarded with speaks

You can assume I'm ready, you don't need to ask

Please don't give me an off-time roadmap - just signpost

I'll disclose if both teams want to hear it

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hey! I debated in PF for five years, and now I coach for Eagan High School and go to Macalester College

Add me to any evidence exchanges: lsalonga@macalester.edu

I'm currently debating in collegiate policy and I am pretty bad at it lol- but at least I have a sense of the more technical args

If you ask me if I want to be on the email chain I'm docking a speak because it told me you didn't look at my paradigm

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is how I used to judge a couple years ago, most of it still stands

This is how my partner judges, he's more in-depth than me

I'll disclose if I'm allowed to. Post-Round me if you feel like it, because I'm definitely not a perfect judge

For Novices/JVers:

- Please don't be mean to each other! It's just a local tournament, you don't need to act like this round defines you. Y'all should have fun :)

(Trust me when I say that I understand if the team is being frustrating. If they're being frustrating, it'll factor in their speaks)

- I don't need you to extend card names in Summary/FF, but the entirety of your argument (uniqueness, links, impact, etc.) needs to be in Summary and Final Focus for me to consider it. If you can walk me through how affirming or negating leads to something good/bad, I will be very very happy

(P.S. : Please ask me questions about any part of my paradigm if you're confused)

For Varsity:

I just want to make it clear that "our coach didn't teach us" isn't really a valid excuse when you're hit with progressive arguments. There's an abundance amount of online resources on learning progressive debate. Like this!!

- Tech > Truth (I don't care about how good you persuade me or how much I believe your argument is true)

- Cut Cards > Paraphrasing (If you paraphrase and your opponents call you out on it and tell me why that's unfair, I'm going to vote on that unless you can defend paraphrasing)

- Anything dropped in second rebuttal is conceded

- Idc about speed, go fast if you want, but send out speech docs if you're gonna go fast

- If you take more than 30 seconds to pull up a card, I'm running your prep. I'll also be timing every speech, and even if you're a second over I'm not flowing anything you say

- Substance > theory (I'll hack for disclosure and paraphrasing theory)

- CI > Reasonability (but willing to be convinced otherwise)

I am a parent judge. I participated in debates during my school years.

Judging Paradigm:

1. Please be concise, speak clearly and call out contentions
2. I prefer progressive arguments that are presented well
3. I weigh evidence favourably over complicated analytics
4. Prefer impacts that are substantiated and are likely

Julia Soczynski - Juliasoc@gmail.com

George Mason '22

Wayzata '18

I now work for Ford Motor Company

Update: If I look cranky, I'm not (maybe).

A little bit about me. I debated for George Mason University, formerly Wayzata High School, I was a 2N. Come Sophomore at college they brought me to the dark side of being a 2A. I think that debate is a game, that said, the way you play is up to you. As a sports fan, I may disagree with some things but does not mean I do not see the value and understand why you play the game of debate the way you do.

As my friend Ezra Serrins puts it, "I appreciate it when debaters take arguments seriously, but you shouldn't take yourself too seriously, it'll just piss me off." The only thing I have to add to that is a good person and have fun.

PF

I've been judging a lot of it lately. Extend your own args, don’t drop your opponents’ args. I vote on the flow and default to util for impact comparison unless you tell me to frame impacts differently. I’m most likely to vote for a PF team that nails impact calc in the rebuttals, does solid work extending offense, and uses effective warrant-level evidence comparison. My 4 biggest pet peeves with PF are (1) labeling literally everything as a voter, (2) saying "de-link,", and (3) using "frontline" as a verb. (4) stealing prep - you will get 15 speaker points. <-- a note on this, I have done this 0 times. It needs to be pretty bad for me to call you on this. I am not evil

Ask me questions, I wrote this quick.

Framework

I probably am 60/40 on voting on framework. The farther the aff is from the rez, the odds of me voting on FW significantly increase. I was raised with the Ogbuli ideal of framework "Fairness is an internal link more than it is an impact, but with sufficient work it can be an impact, this is work missing from the vast majority of framework debates. It's probably not the best impact against teams making identity-based arguments, against all other teams it should make an appearance. Substantive framework impacts such as cede the political, agonism, deliberation, etc are generally more persuasive especially against identity based arguments." The idea of debate being fair. Eh.

Topicality

Both teams (especially aff teams): articulate your vision of the topic/debate and why it's better than the other team's. If I don't know what that is, it's not an insta-kill for the other team, but it will definitely hurt you. Please have an impact, please do framing, thank you in advance. Aff teams: I like it when the aff relates to the resolution in some way. That doesn’t mean you have to have a plan, but the further you go from the rez, the likelier I’ll be to Vote neg on T. I really like when the aff has offense outside of "procedurals are violent". Internal link turn stuff, that's fun. Neg teams: yes, I'm in the camp that thinks there is a difference between T and FW. Just because I think this doesn't mean you get to blow off their offense with "we're T not FW" and leave it at that (explain stuff please). I like it when there's a TVA, especially on this topic.

Nontraditional/K affs

Both teams (especially aff teams): articulate your vision of the topic/debate and why it's better than the other team's. If I don't know what that is, it's not an insta-kill for the other team, but it will definitely hurt you. Please have an impact, please do framing, thank you in advance.

Aff teams: I like it when the aff relates to the resolution in some way. That doesn’t mean you have to have a plan, but the further you go from the rez, the likelier I’ll be to vote neg on T. I really like when the aff has offense outside of "procedurals are violent". Internal link turn stuff, that's fun.

Neg teams: yes, I'm in the camp that thinks there is a difference between T and FW. Just because I think this doesn't mean you get to blow off their offense with "we're T not FW" and leave it at that (explain stuff please). I like it when there's a TVA, especially on this topic.

Kritiks

I understand at least the basic theory behind most Ks, and increased the number I run tremendously between junior year of hs and the end of my debate career. However, please don’t blow off explanation and contextualization. Too many aff teams let negs get away with read generic links or links that are about the status quo - call them on that. Impact comparison is severely underutilized in K debates. Alts are usually the weakest part of these debates, so the neg should devote time (before the 2NR, come on now) to explaining how the alt functions/solves. Floating PIKs are probably not a reason to reject the team, but reading one will make me a lot more sympathetic to the perm. Links of omission are not real links. PS. If you call someone out of there link of omission and say "oh yes, the link of omission." I will bump your speaks up.

Counterplans

Love them!

I will only kick the CP if asked. 2As tell me why they shouldn’t get to I will listen!

Disads

I Love DAs. The unfortunate a lot of people read with hyper-generic links that require a ton of spin to win. With that in mind, case specific disads (or even just hyper-specific link cards) are awesome. Politics is great. Politics and a CP were 80% of my 2NRs. I love really unique, well-explained turns-case stories.

Theory

I have no predisposition to sides when theory is run as a as a reason to reject the argument, but I most likely won’t vote on theory as a reason to reject the team unless it’s condo. On the condo question, I really don’t care. You can win that one condo is bad/good or 5 condo is bad/good. More reasonably, 5 condo may be is pushing it. (I have been informed this is a hot take). Please slow down and do line by line on theory, as it makes it easier for me to judge.

Yeah, that's it. Have fun!

I look for about 50% content, 50% presentation. Show me passion and confidence and have facts to back up your argument and you'll do well :)

I am currently an assistant PF coach at St. Paul Academy and Summit School.

I'm relatively new to the debate world, so I prefer clear, logical arguments. I like to see arguments extended throughout the debate, with weighing of impacts in final focus.

Speak at a pace you're capable of; if I can't understand it, I can't write it in the flow.

Cross needs to be respectful; talking over your opponent as they are asking or responding to a question is very disrespectful and I expect better than that.

Debate is designed to be a space to engage in thoughtful discussion about real-world topics. This means you should be engaging in your opponents' case, not just reading a canned speech and responses written by your coach or captain.

This is an extracurricular, so it should be fun! Let it be fun, and don't let a bad round ruin your day :)

Hello !

This is my second year as a parent Judge. I am a lay judge that will vote for the team presenting me strong arguments supported by accurate, convincing and relevant evidence and outweighing the impacts

1. I would prefer you state a source with more information while reading cards. For example: John Apple reports from the brooking institute in 2022, instead of Apple 22, this way it gives your source credibility and I will know that it is not from some random angry Reddit user’s post.

1. Please speak at a reasonable pace. Remember, this is not a speed reading competition. ABSOLUTELY NO SPREADING. If I get lost in your speech because you're reading too fast, I won't be able to judge your case fairly.

2. Please be mindful of the time limit. If you are 5 seconds over the time limit, I will stop to flow your speech.

PLEASE NO RUNNING THEORY, KRITIKS OR FRAMEWORK I will immediately Vote against you.

Above all else, PLEASE TREAT YOUR OPPONENTS AND JUDGE WITH RESPECT.

I am excited to be your judge and I can’t wait to listen to your debate. Best of luck to both teams!