Tabroom.com

Harvard National Speech and Debate Tournament

2024 — Cambridge, MA/US

PF (In-Person Divisions) Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Wilfredo Abrahante Roslyn High School

Geanell Adams St. Andrew's Episcopal School

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:52 AM CDT

Hello, I’m Geanell Adams! I'm a college professor with a varied life experience including military service. I have educational backgrounds in political science, business, accounting, government, economic and workforce development, career technical education, and higher education. My work experiences correlate to those educational attributes. A fun fact is that I am also a stenographer and can write machine shorthand up to 260 wpm. This paradigm applies to all debates.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Keep me in the loop on file sharing (geanelladams@aol.com) and make your subject lines specific. I will only flow what I comprehend in round, but I will go through the files if I was thrown off track or need to double-check something.

I am usually okay with some speed, but make sure you articulate and are coherent. If you want to speed up as the round goes on, we can try it out. I will be more forgiving when it comes to clarity and will say clear as often as it takes. When signposting, let me know which arguments are especially important and weigh it when you get there. Fewer, more-developed arguments are preferred.

I am more than willing to listen to any arguments or approaches to your side of the resolution; however, assume that I am not familiar with the literature or your arguments. You need to be intentional about what you say and how you tie it together. So, I will not piece together what went unsaid, and I will not vote for you if your arguments are unclear.

I am generally substance over procedure, truth over tech, but that is not a hard and fast rule. I am willing to vote for anything that is well-explained.

I tend not to give verbal or non-verbal cues. I tend to be stoic and don't show or exhibit expression. This is intended to keep the presenter from being distracted by me as the judge. So don't take this an an indication that I agree or disagree with you.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here are some of the ways you can lose the round immediately:

- Being deceitful by clipping cards, falsifying evidence or any number of shady things

- Being rude or disrespectful to me or anyone else

- Being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. in any way shape or form

I try not to intervene but will do so if I am invited to, like being asked to read evidence or if I feel that bad behavior is taking place.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions or concerns before round!

Hadley Adkison Grand Oaks High School

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 7:46 AM CDT

History

My pronouns are she/her/hers. My debate experience started in Junior High with Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, Parliamentary debate, and most extensively World Schools Debate. I am currently a student at The University of Arkansas debating in IPDA.

Preferences

The main thing I expect to see in a round is respect for your opponents. Keep your arguments on the topic, don’t resort to insults or petty commentary. It will not win you the round. To win the round, you need both Content and Logic. Do not expect to win a round solely off of one or the other.

Public Forum is supposed to be communicative and understandable. I will judge with those two things in mind.

Everything in the round is true to me unless someone calls it out. I will not call for your cards, it is up to you to convey the evidence to me and impact it out. Quality over quantity.
Saying less but in a clear manner is far more important and effective than saying more in a way that cannot be understood.
Warranting & Impacting > Evidence
I will flow everything I can catch. If you are spreading or speaking too fast for me to keep up, I will put down my pen.
I am keeping time, but the more I need to pay attention to and check your time usage, the less I am able to flow your content. Please keep your time and be accountable.
Keep it respectful. There is no need to yell or get argumentative in cross or in your speeches.

I competed with International WSD Norms and expect them in any Worlds round.

POIs are a strategic tool in rounds, not a chance to bombard your opponent. Stay respectful and wait the customary 15 seconds between POIs. I take your POIs into consideration if you connect them or circle back to them in your substantive speeches. Follow WSD norms.
It does not matter how many arguments you make if none of them are weighed against your opponents. Make sure to engage with your opponents' case and extend your arguments down the bench. Please don't just reiterate your substantives without telling me why they are more important or more correct than the opposing side's
Impacting is integral to winning my ballot. There is a reason the motion is being debated, find it and tell me why it matters. Impact out each of your arguments. Magnitude, Scope, and Relevance.

Just have a clean round and do your best!

Vijay Adusumilli Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Annushka Agarwal Hire

Bobby Aiyer Millburn High School

Rishi Ajmera Lumos Debate Institute (MS)

Ross Alden Montville

Jeff Allyn LION Charter High School

Manu Anand Walt Whitman

Katia Anastas The Bronx High School Of Science

Michael Anglemire Castle View High School

Mary Beth Armstrong The PotomacSchool

Last changed on Mon June 3, 2024 at 6:55 AM EDT

PF Coach @ The Potomac School since 2021,

W&M '24, GMU '22 (debated (policy) 4 yrs in HS & 4 yrs at GMU)

Put me on your email chain marybeth.armstrong18@gmail.com

Policy

*UPDATE for NSDA 2024*

I graduated from Mason 2 years ago and have since been pretty much out of the policy game. I have not judged a single round on the high school policy topic this year, so please make sure you are being as specific as possible in your explanation of arguments (especially when it comes to T, CP mechs, etc).

The longer version of my paradigm is below but, TLDR: I’m receptive to all kinds of arguments. Read what you are good at.

Policy v Policy

Cards: I will read them to answer questions about my flow or to compare the quality of evidence of well debated arguments (this is not an excuse for poor explanation).

T: The standards I prefer and find most persuasive are limits/ground and real world context. I default to competing interpretations if no other metric is given. However, I err aff if I think your interp is reasonable (given reasonability is explained properly, it is often not) and the negative did not prove you made debate impossible even if neg interp is slightly better. Otherwise, just defend your interp is a good vision of the topic.

Theory

I am generally fine with unlimited condo. However, will be much more inclined to vote on condo if your vision of unlimited condo is 7 counterplans in the 1NC with no solvency advocates. Fail to see how that is a) strategic or b) educational. I will certainly vote on condo if it is dropped or won tho.

I'm fine with PICs out of specific portions the aff defends.

99 out of 100 times, if it's not condo, it's a reason to reject the arg. You need a clear reason why they skewed the round to get me to drop them even if it is dropped. Having said that, if you win that a CP is illegitimate you're probably in a good spot anyways.

K v Policy Affs

Specificity of links goes a long way. This doesn't mean your evidence has to be exactly about the plan but applying your theory to the aff in a way that takes out solvency will do a world of good for you. Please remember I haven't done research on this topic, so good explanations will be to your benefit.

Make sure the alt does something to resolve your links/impacts + aff offense OR you have FW that eliminates aff offense. (Having an alt in the 2NR is definitely to your benefit in these debates, I am less likely to err neg even if you win a link to the aff without some resolution).

However, I probably tend to err aff on the f/w portion of the debate. Weigh the aff, key to fairness, etc are all arguments I tend to find persuasive. I also think a well developed argument about legal/pragmatic engagement will go a long way.

Good impact framing is essential in the majority of these debates. For the aff - be careful here, even if you win case outweighs, the neg can still win a link turns case arg and you will lose.

Contextual line-by-line debates are better than super long overviews. I will not make cross-applications for you.

K Affs v Policy

K Affs should probably have some relation to the resolution. They should also probably do something to resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. If it isn't doing something, I need an extremely good explanation for why. TLDR: if I don’t know what the aff does after the CX of the 1AC, you are going to have a v hard time the rest of the round.

Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Fairness is an impact. However, go for whatever version of FW you are best at. In the same vain as some of the stuff above, being contextual to the aff is critical. If you make no reference to the aff especially in the latter half of the debate, it will be hard to win my ballot.

Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like & why that vision is better. Or if the negative team does not have a superb counterinterp - impact turn the affs model of debate.

K v K

If you find me in these debates, make the debate simple for me. Clear contextual explanations are going to go a long way. Impact framing/explanation is going to be key in these rounds.

Flow judge, tell me how to evaluate the round

Here are a few thoughts:

1. I absolutely despise the way evidence is traded in PF. It is so unbelievably inefficient. You will probably be rewarded if you just send cases/rebuttal docs before each speech because I will less annoyed. If you are asking for opponents to write out/send analytics, you are self reporting, I know you aren't flowing.

2. Links and impacts need to be in the summary if you want me to evaluate them in the final focus. Please do not tagline extend your argument, do some comparative analysis in regard to your opponents arguments. Please go beyond just extending author names as well - most of the time I don’t really flow authors unless it matters.

3. Tech > Truth

4. I don’t flow cross, but I am listening. If something important happens in cross it NEEDS to be in your speech.

5. Theory: I am comfortable evaluating theory, although it super aggravates me when debaters read theory on teams that clearly wont know how to answer it just because they think it is an easy ballot, I will tank speaks for this. Either way, theory is just another argument I will evaluate on the flow, so make sure you are doing line-by-line, just like you would on any other argument. However, generally I think disclosure is beneficial and CWs are good when they are actually needed.

6. Ks: I will evaluate them, but probably have a pretty high threshold for explanation. I think there are ways to run them and be effective, but I think it is extremely hard given the time constraints of PF. I hate link of omissions though. pls stop

Al Arthur Concord Carlisle High School

Joe Augustine Regis High School

Lucia Bacon Pinecrest High School None

Cathy Baker Portsmouth High School

Vidhi Ballaney Bergen Debate Club

Bobby Bao St. Mark's School

Shelley Barandes Cambridge Rindge and Latin None

Jennifer Barber Sequoyah High School

Thomas Barone Regis High School

Christopher Bartee Success Academy HSLA-MANHATTAN

Ben Bartels Berkeley Carroll School

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 8:13 AM EDT

I want to see the best round that you’ve gotat your ability level.

Novice Teams:

Don’t stress! I love to see young debaters trying their best.
Stick to the basics- Present your case well. Flow effectively. Try to address all your opponents’ points. Practice speaking with enthusiasm and confidence.
CLASH! Listen to what your opponents are saying. Adjust your arguments so you’re talking specificallyabout the way your opponent presented their case. The more you can respond to what was said in this specific round as opposed to parroting general counter-arguments you’ve prepared, the better a debater you will be!
Only spread if you really can do it.
Use each round to practice skills you’ve been working on recently. Especially if you’ve gotten consistent feedback from judges or coaches, use this round to apply that feedback and see if you can perform better than the last round.
Be respectful.
Have fun.

Varsity/Experienced Teams:

Show me what you got.
Pick your strat based on the team you’re up against.
When picking which case you run: I have no preference between truthful verses creative.
If you’ve got a crazy case to run that will crush the meta, do it! Just make sure you have enough evidence and are familiar enough with your argument that you can pivot deftly to tough questions in cross or intense scrutiny as you collapse.
If it’s a topic that simply insists on the meta, use it. I don’t care if we’ve seen the arguments a million times during a tournament if they’re effective. Argue it well and, if you’re bored, do it with flare.
If you can spread and that will make the debate better, do it. If spreading makes you unintelligible, don’t. Emphasis
While I like to see an attempt to line-by-line every point that’s brought up in case, as the round continues, I prefer meaningful clash on issues that grow relevant in the round OVER an unending fight on the veracity of each and every sub-point.
Therefore: collapse. (If your opponent leaves things in your speeches untouched, go ahead and extend them. In this case, I still think it’s nice if you highlight a key issue that emerges in the round for me to vote on. But I if you get to keep all your offense, go for a blowout.)
I love sign-posting. Be clear about your story of the round. It saves me thinking time if you spell out for me who you think has solvency, uniqueness, more standing arguments, etc. But also explainwhy.
K and Theory only if it’s super awesome. I hold a higher standard for K then regular adjudication.
No disclosure theory. That’s my only hard pass.
In general, I will try to judge the round on the terms YOU set.
Finally, I learn from every round. I reiterate, show me what you got. YOU teach US how awesome and varied debate can be.

Elliot Beamer Durham Academy

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 9:03 PM PDT

Please pre-flow before rounds!!!

Hey everyone, I’m Elliot. I debated with my sister Claire as part of College Prep BB. I'm a sophomore at Duke University and I coach for Durham Academy.

Add me to the chain: eb393@duke.edu

Remember to collapse well, extend your argument fully, and weigh! Good weighing fully compares the impact you are going for with your opponents impact, and tells me through what lens I should make my decision.

I prefer a substance debate with good clash. I am open to evaluating any kind of argument — however I reserve the right to intervene if debaters are reading arguments in an inaccessible manner. Don’t be mean or problematic please, it won’t go well for you.

Feel free to go fast if you want but you should definitely send a speech doc! I can listen to and understand speed but I much prefer to have a doc to make sure I don't miss anything when I flow. If your opponents call for evidence and you have a doc with all of your evidence, just send the whole doc, and send it as a Word doc or in the text of an email. Stop sending a google doc and deleting it after the round...Have all your evidence ready please. If you take a while to send evidence - you’ll lose speaker points and you are also giving your opponents a chance to steal prep.

I think that almost all structural violence framing needs to be in rebuttal or constructive. I wont evaluate a blip read in summary thats like "don't evaluate any other impacts bla bla bla." You can read new weighing in summary but if it's not in summary it shouldn't be in final, unless you are just tweaking implications of the same piece of weighing or making a backline to a new response from first final or second summary.

Returning to in person debate norms:

You can sit down or stand when speaking, whatever makes you feel most comfortable
Please at least try to make some eye contact during your speeches and during crossfire
During prep time, don't talk so loudly that everyone can hear what you are saying

Some of my favorite judges when I debated: Eli Glickman, Will Sjostrom, Sanjita Pamidimukkala, Gabe Rusk

Martha Becker Duchesne Academy Of The Sacred Heart None

Magdalena Belev Natick High School

Dana Bell Success Academy Midtown West MS

Last changed on Sat May 4, 2024 at 12:06 PM EDT

I coach policy and public forum debate at Success Academy Midtown West Middle School and have coached with BDL and Able2Shine. Much of my paradigm is based on a MS debate level but I enjoy higher level debates, too. I have been in forensics over a decade; four years of PF, two of Parliamentary, and four years of IPDA experience competing and many in speech. I can speak directly to older teams about my paradigm if they have questions.

DISCLOSURE: I have chronic dry eye. In most situations this is not an issue, but I know how frustrating it can be too look up and see your judge isn't paying attention or is falling asleep. If you see me closing or covering my eyes or even crying please understand it's a medical issue and not indicative of my attention span or emotional state.

danabellcontact@gmail.com for the chain.

My experience is mainly in IPDA, Public Forum, and Parliamentary Debate, with Policy being well understood but not a favorite. I prefer educational rounds with an emphasis on accessibility.

Feel free to ask me for specifics in the room.

1. Most debates can be won or lost over one central issue. Define that issue for me and tell me why your side should win. I love threading a value throughout the debate to help me weigh. It's the Pubfo in me. Sorry.

2. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reasons (voting issues) you think I should vote for you.

3. Cross examination matters. I flow it probably more than anything else said in the round. I will consider the ability of you to actually understand what you say. I want cards to be read, not recited.

4. POFO: I love framework debates and definitions debates. Emphasis on definitions debates. Squirrels are one of my favorite animals. Observations, Ks, have fun but make it accessible POLICY: Love T, love K, don't hate Performance. All I ask is you commit. A dropped K or T arg is a big waste of the round and it's not a reason I'll drop you, but it could be what sets up your downfall. Be cautious!

5. I can understand fast speaking. BUT KEEP TAGS AND AUTHOR SLOW. I'd rather you present four excellent arguments than eight ok ones. I don't literally "weigh" the arguments in quantity.

6. Be kind and speak with inflection. I dislike being able to tell that you don't really understand what you're saying. This is a debate, not a speedreading contest.

10. SIGNPOST AND ROADMAP!!! Organization matters. Time that I have to spend shuffling my flows and figuring out what exactly you're responding to is not time that I'm spending actually hearing you.Take that extra 30 seconds of prep to make sure your speech is actually in the order you're saying it's in.

11. Body language is a language; people watching can understand when you're being patronizing and don't respect who you're speaking to.You are debating even when you are not speaking.

12. You're meant to be making this debate for the sake of society, not each other. Excessive "alphabet soup" and a general ignorance towards the fact there may be someone in the room who doesn't understand the very niche language of policy debate is an annoyance to me.

13. PF specific: I love a good framework but if there's an egregiously strong point outside of it I'll listen to "forget framework" arguments. I prefer analytics over reading cards 1000%. I usually vote for the more educational team. Also, it's "Public" forum, not Policy. (REAL) Spreading with no email chain in PF is a typical auto-drop (if that makes you want to strike me and this is a MS-HS tournament, I doubt you actually spread that fast and I mean that for collegiate teams.)

Mikaila Bennett Waring School

Last changed on Wed February 7, 2024 at 6:44 AM EDT

Hey, my name is Mikaila (she/her), I'm a senior at the Waring School, and I've been debating for 3 years in PF.

I will come into the round with the expectation that you will abide by and follow NSDA code of honor -humility, equity, integrity, respect, leadership, and service- and if you don't, your speaker points will probably be effected, and I may consider this in my RFD.

This means: don't be disrespectful to your opponents during prep, or their speeches, don't laugh at something you hear your opponent say, and definitely don't mansplain.

Other things to be aware of:

Weighing is a big part of how I vote, you should do this for me, tell me why you win, but don't say stuff like "Judge you NEED to vote pro for x reason", saying I "should" vote for you is fine, but "need to" is annoying.I also vote based on responsiveness to the opponents' argument and the ability to support claims through strong evidence or reasoning. Please remember to carry through your reasoning as well as your impacts to the later speeches in the round. I will not consider new evidence that is brought up in grand cross or final focus.

Don't spread, I can try to understand you, but it won't be pretty, and I won't catch everything, if you want a win speak clearly.

Don't run K's or Theory, this isn't policy, PF should be substance based, and not corrupted by these strategies.

I believe that a good debate has both tech and truth. Debate is about a balance of the two. A strong debater can effectively use rhetoric, evidence, and strategy in a round.

Off time roadmaps are appreciated, and if you're not going to give one, please signpost before saying something so I know what you're responding to.

Try to make eye contact with me while speaking in order to be compelling, if you can don't just read straight off your computer.

I don't need to be added to evidence exchanges, unless it comes down to a point of contention (pun intended) in a round. That being said, my email is mikailab@waringschool.org.

When you call a card, any time you spend looking at it comes out of your own prep, your opponent has one minute to come up with the card, or I will consider that they do not have evidence to support.

Remember that debate is about having fun, and learning, and that everyone there is literally just a bunch teenagers dressed up in suits on a Saturday, and that in the grand scheme of things, your High School debate record doesn't matter that much, so don't stress :)

Dawn Berkshire Hamilton High School

Marcus Berkshire Hamilton High School

Dashiell Bhattacharyya Horace Mann School

Tommy Billings Phoenix Country Day School

Justin Black Hire

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 6:17 AM EDT

Harvard '27, Government and Computer Science

4 years PF @ Phillipsburg, 2 years WSD @ NJ

If you have any questions on what is on your ballot, advice, or are adding me to an email chain: jblack0898@gmail.com.

FOR VARSITY: Speech doc for case is required, if your rebuttal is card-heavy then rebuttal too.

Substance:

98.9% of the time, if you are evenly matched with your opponents, whichever team weighs better will win my ballot. With this being said, please weigh for the love of God
Tech > Truth
If you’re going to spread, send a speech doc. With this being said, you will make my day marginally worse if you spread. Also, if I can't hear it, I'm not flowing it. I will flow from a doc as long as you're comprehensible. SLOW DOWN FOR TAGS
I won’t call for evidence unless you tell me to. Update: I'll call for evidence if two teams seem to fundamentally disagree about what the evidence actually says.

I won’t flow cross, but everything said is binding (unless it's obvious you misspoke). If it's important, mention it in a speech.
If it’s not in Summary, it’s not in Final
Going for everything is not a strategic way to win my ballot
Final should write my ballot for me
If an overview non-uniques both cases and no warrant is read on which side to presume, I'm ignoring the overview
Feel free to post-round me, but just know, even if you convince me in post-round, you lost because you were unable to make that clear in round
A claim without a warrant is not an argument. The burden is on you to give me a warrant, not the other team to call it out.

Prog:

Theory is fine but note two things:

Don’t make me sit through stupid theory shells
If you’re a big school running against a small school (for anything except serious abuse), I will judge you fairly but I will tank your speaks

I’m generally not well versed in other types of progressive argumentation. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote on it. Take this as you will.

Other random stuff:

Your speaks will represent your strategic decisions in the round and not your actual speaking ability. Read smart stuff, get good speaks.
Generally, I give pretty high speaks.
I rarely flow author names so just give me a short synopsis as you extend
Finally, following PF Finals at Harvard, so I can feel comfortable giving a Catherine Liu-esque decision next time: I won't evaluate unweighed competing links to the same impact. Nothing was worse than sitting there for five minutes sifting through evidence trying to conjure up reasons why whatever link was stronger to climate change. In fact, I'll even steal her exact wording:

"Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed."

I doubt this will come up often again, but it helps me sleep better at night.

FOR PARLI: No off-time roadmaps unless there is something complicated. Just tell me where you are starting. Y'all literally give off-time roadmaps to your off-time roadmaps.

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn Cypress Bay High School

Last changed on Fri March 1, 2024 at 9:04 AM EDT

Sarah Botsch-McGuinn

email: sbotschmcguinn@gmail.com

Director of Speech & Debate-Cypress Bay HS (2022-present)

Director of Speech and Debate-Cooper City HS (2018-2022)

Director of Speech and Debate-American Heritage Palm Beach (2017-2018)

Director of Forensics-Notre Dame San Jose (2009-2017)
Head Debate Coach-Notre Dame San Jose (2008-2009)

General:
I’ve been a debate coach for the past 16 years, and Director of Forensics for 9 at NDSJ, one year as Director at American Heritage, 4 years at Cooper City HS and now at Cypress Bay High School. I primarily coached Parliamentary Debate from 2008-2017, including circuit Parli debate. I've been involved in National Circuit LD pretty extensively over the last 8 years, but have judged all forms of debate at all levels from local south Florida and northern CA to national circuit.

First and foremost, I only ever judge what is presented to me in rounds. I do not extend arguments for you and I do not bring in my own bias. I am a flow judge, and I will flow the entire debate, no matter the speed, though I do appreciate being able to clearly understand all your points. I consider myself to be a gamemaker in my general philosophy, so I see debate as game. That doesn't mean that there aren't real world impacts off debate (and I tend to be convinced by 'this will impact outside the round' type of arguments). **I don't vote on defense. It's important but you won't win on a defensive answer.**

While I do appreciate fresh approaches to resolution analysis, I’m not an “anything goes” judge. I believe there should be an element of fair ground in debate-debates without clash, debates with extra topicality, etc will almost certainly see me voting against whoever tries to do so if the other side even makes an attempt at arguing it (that said, if you can’t adequately defend your right to a fair debate, I’m not going to do it for you. Don’t let a team walk all over you!). Basically, I love theoretical arguments, and feel free to run them, just make sure they have a proper shell+. *Note: when I see clear abuse in round I have a very low threshold for voting on theory. Keep that in mind-if you try to skew your opponent out of the round, I WILL vote you down if they bring it up.*

I also want to emphasize that I'm an educator first and foremost. I believe in the educational value of debate and it's ability to create critical thinkers.

+Theory shell should at minimum have: Interpretation, Violation, Standards and Voters.

Speaks:
Since quality of argument wins for me 100% of the time, I’m not afraid of the low point win. I don’t expect this to enter into the rounds much at an elite tournament where everyone is at the highest level of speaking style, but just as an emphasis that I will absolutely not vote for a team just because they SOUND better. I tend to stick to 26-29+ point range on a 30 scale, with average/low speakers getting 26s, decent speakers getting 27s, good 28s, excellent 29s, and 30 being reserved for best I’ve seen all day. I will punish rudeness/lying in speaks though, so if you’re rude or lie a lot, expect to see a 25 or less. Additionally, shouting louder doesn’t make your point any better, I can usually hear just fine.

If I gave you less than 25, you probably really made me angry. If you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, ableist etc I will punish you in speaks. You have been warned. I will kill your speaks if you deliberately misgender or are otherwise harmful in round. I am not going to perpetuate hate culture in debate spaces.

Speed:
I have no problem with speed, but please email me your case if you are spreading. I will call 'clear' once if you are going too fast, and put down my pen/stop typing if I can't follow. It's only happened a couple times, so you must be REALLY fast for me to give up.

PLEASE SIGN POST AND TAG, ESPECIALLY IF I'M FLOWING ON MY LAPTOP. IF I MISS WHERE AN ARGUMENT GOES BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T TAG IT, THAT'S YOUR FAULT NOT MINE.

A prioris:
Please explain why your argument is a-priori before I will consent to consider it as such. Generally I am only willing to entertain framework arguments as a-priori, but who knows, I've been surprised before.

Theory:
Theory is great, as I mentioned above, run theory all day long with me, though I am going to need to see rule violations and make sure you have a well structured shell. I should not see theory arguments after the 1AR in LD or after the MG speech in Parli. I also don't want to see theory arguments given a ten second speed/cursory explanation, when it's clear you're just trying to suck up time. My threshold is high for RVIs, but if you can show how your opponent is just sucking time, I'm open to this. Also open to condo-bad arguments on CPs/Ks, though that doesn't mean you'll automatically win on this.

Disclosure theory: I'm unlikely to vote on this if your opponent isn't reading something very strange. I think education and disclosure is good but that doesn't mean I think someone should automatically lose for not. Keep this in mind. PLEASE I DONT WANT TO HEAR DISCLOSURE LITERALLY READ ANYTHING ELSE IM BEGGING YOU.

Most other theory I evaluate in round. I don't tend to go for blippy theory arguments though!

Critical arguments:
I love the K, give me the K, again, just be structured. I don't need the whole history of the philosopher, but I haven't read everything ever, so please be very clear and give me a decent background to the argument before you start throwing impacts off it. Also, here's where I mention that impacts are VITAL to me, and I want to see terminal impacts.

I prefer to see clash of ROB/ROJ/Frameworks in K rounds. If you are going to run a K aff either make it topical or disclose so we can have a productive round. Please.

Presumption:
In general I default to competing interp. If for some reason we have gotten to the point of terribad debate, I presume Neg (Aff has burden to prove the resolution/affirm. Failure to do so is Neg win. God please don't make me do this :( )

Weighing:
I like very clear weighing in rebuttals. Give me voting issues and compare worlds, tell me why I should prefer or how you outweigh, etc. Please. I go into how I evaluate particular impacts below.

I like clear voting issues! Just because I’m flowing doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate you crystallizing and honing in on your main points of offense.

I prefer voter speeches follow a: Main points of offense-->impact calc--->world comp model. If you just do impact calc I'll be happy with it, but I like looking on my voter sheet for what you feel you're winning on. It helps me more quickly organize my ideas.

Impacts:
I put a lot of emphasis on impacts in my decisions. The team with bigger/more terminal, etc impacts generally walks away with my vote, so go to town. This goes doubly true for framework or critical arguments. Why is this destroying debate as we know it? Why is this ___ and that's horrible? Translation: I tend to weigh magnitude heaviest in round, but if you can prove pretty big probable impacts over very low probability extinction impacts I'll likely go that direction.

You should be able to articulate how your contentions support your position/value/whatever. That should go without saying, but you would be very surprised. I don't vote on blips, even if we all know what you're saying is true. So please warrant your claims and have a clear link story. This goes doubly true for critical positions or theory.

Preferences for arguments:

If you want to know what I like to see in round, here are my preferences in order:

K debate

LARP

Theory

Phil

Traditional

Tricks

This doesn't mean I won't vote for a tricks case but I will be much sadder doing it.

Hana Boulware Horace Mann School

Inko Bovenzi Hire

Jamie Brashear Avenues: The World School

Luiz Bravim Cardinal Gibbons

Last changed on Mon June 3, 2024 at 7:24 AM EDT

About me: I'm Mr. Bravim (pronounced brah-veem). 25 yrs. in speech & debate. Competed, judged, and coached all over.

Email: bravim@cghsfl.org

* LD Prefs

I will considerany warranted argument presented in round. Please weigh clearly and effectively and lay out the big issues in the round/voters. Tell me the clearest path to the ballot! I do not want to intervene. I find a quality framework debate/clash VERY interesting. If the fw clash is circular and/or the differentiation is minimal, go for something else or find a new angle on fw.

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

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

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

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

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

In order of preference:

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

I find most theory debates dull, but will listen to them if that's what you want to do. I've voted off theory maybe 4-5 times and judged a lot of LD rounds. I prefer you try to win anywhere else unless there is a flagrant, obvious, and clear violation of tournament rules or NSDA rules. Above all, the quality of argument matters more to me than the style of debate. I don't mind some speed used strategically, but please don't spread throughout the round. I'd much rather you win one good argument on the flow and weigh than 10 smaller ones that I struggle to follow because of speed/clarity issues.

* PF Prefs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Big Questions

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

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

* Congress Prefs

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

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

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

PET PEEVES

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

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

3. Doc bots.

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

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

FOR FUN

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

Academic Interests:

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

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

Good luck to all!

Chelsea A Briggs Stoneman Douglas High School

Nora Bruey Ivy Bridge Academy

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 8:23 PM EDT

Former debater (hs policy and college NDT/CEDA...decades ago) and current parent of a PF debater.

I flow. Good with normative jargon. I care about the line-by-line. Number your arguments and signpost--I like a clean flow. I can handle spreading, I'll call "clear" if unable to keep up. If a shell or the arg is a tad squirrelly be deliberate so I don't miss warrants. If this is a fast-paced, high-stakes Varsity round...I’m not going to be up on the latest literature--so Ks will carry a risk of losing me, and none of us want that! Fancy srategies and theory are cool but slow down the explanations—connect dots for me. If it isn’t my making sense, my face will tell you. Please make it make sense :) I'm going to be best judging a normative round--but I'll listen to any argument you want to make.

Little things I’ve noticed about my preferences in PF (but like any tech judge, I work hard to evaluate the debate based on the round not my preferences)

I’m a fan of case disclosure--in the hopes it will create a little more ev rigor in PF. My biggest surprise in PF is how little ev is read and scrutinized...but ultimately case disclosure is up to the debaters, not me!

Housekeeping to cut down on time for ev exchange: start ev chain before round; Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs should cut full paragraphs, and include highlighting.

If you offer a framework in your case, lean into it…, meaning it should match your impact/weighing or else it becomes a tad tedious for me.

I would love to hear more comparative link weighing in PF.

A little FAQ for first/second years:

I don’t flow Cx. It is binding. But you need to bring it up in your speech to get it in flow. And you don’t have to face me during CX, you can face your opposing team.
Collapsing is good, if second final focus brings up new arguments, don’t panic. I’m not flowing it.
Frontline in the second rebuttal. If you don’t, I’ll most likely buy the other team’s argument that it’s conceded.
Good warranting and implications raises speaks.
I'm pretty laid back...have fun...sit, stand, go barefoot I don't care. Be clear before you'e clever, but be clever.Bring your best strategy, argue it well and have fun. And you do you...I'll flex as best I can!

Christopher Bryant Cranbrook

Naveen Budda Lambert High School

Evan Burkeen American Heritage Broward HS

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 3:23 AM EDT

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

few must-know notes:

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

few notes that aren't must-knows but helpful

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

things that get you really good speaks

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

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

Bilal Butt Charlotte Latin School

Last changed on Sat March 9, 2024 at 11:03 AM EDT

I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Charlotte Latin School. I coach a full team and have coached all events.

Email Chain: bbutt0817@gmail.com - This is largely for evidence disputes, as I will not flow off the doc.

Currently serve on the Public Forum Topic Wording Committee, and have been since 2018.

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

2. Am ok with speed/spreading but should only be used for depth of coverage really.

3. LARP/Trad/Topical Ks/T > Theory/Tricks/Non-topical Ks

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater but don't use speed unless you have too.**

- I am not a calculator. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning not just the sheer number of arguments you are winning. This is a communication event so do that, with some humor and panache.

- I have a high threshold for theory arguments to be valid in PF. Unless there is in round abuse, I probably won’t vote for a frivolous shell. So I would avoid reading most of the trendy theory arguments in PF.

5 Things to Remember…

1. Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include “I will be going over my opponent’s case and if time permits I will address our case”)

After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I do not like that.

2. Framework

I will evaluate arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.

3. Extensions

Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense extensions to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.

4. Evidence

Paraphrasing is ok, but you leave your evidence interpretation up to me. Tell me what your evidence says and then explain its role in the round. Make sure to extend evidence in late round speeches.

5. Narrative

Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to the key contention-level impact story or how your strategy presents cohesion and some key answers on your opponents’ contentions/case.

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.

28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.

27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.

25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.

Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.

***Speaker Points break down borrowed from Mollie Clark.***

Micah Byron-Smarra Waring School

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 8:33 AM EDT

Hi! My name is Micah (They/Them)
I'm a flow judge from Waring School in Beverly Massachusetts, I've been debating Public Forum for 4 years now and have experience at local tournaments as well as national circuit tournaments. I will most likely be debating some of the topics that I'm judging, so I'll know common arguments and won't need terms defined for me in your framework or during rounds unless I indicate otherwise before ro.

Before Round: Please introduce yourself(name, pronouns, school, and speaking order), create an evidence-share email chain and add me to it Micahb@waringschool.org, give any pertinent trigger warnings(more on that later), and most importantly, take a breath, relax, and remember debate is all about having fun and learning!! :)

TLDR: I'm Tech>Truth I won't intervene in the round unless you force me to so no I won't check your opponent's wiki, and no I won't look at their cards unless you tell me to. I'll evaluate pretty much everything but the more absurd it is the lower the bar for responses will be.

Style
feel free to speak as quickly as you want, I'm 100 percent ok with spreading just make sure it's comprehensible and please send a doc. I'll flow off the doc as long as you're saying actual words but if I can't tell if you're reading a grocery list or a speech doc then my pen is gonna hit the desk.

Idc if you wanna sit or stand but I'll prob end up boosting speaks if you stand for cross and have a cool style, the reverse if you're a jerk though :(

While I don't hack for squirely args I don't wanna sit through the same healthcare vs climate change. I won't bring speaks down but the more enjoyabe the round is the more likely I am to catch everything you say.

General:

WEIGH! The team that weighs the most will probably win unless yall aren't evenly matched. Please make it a clean round. I do tend to buy risk of solvency weighig if you're winning the framework but you need to implicate it and warrant it out, you can't just say ROS and move on. Otherwise do you.

Prog:
Ok ima be real, if you're running prog in novice then its probably time to move to JV. That being said I will of course evaluate prog like any other argument. I think disclo is good for big schools but I also think its a norm, not a rule. If you hit a small school with disclo as a big school say goodbye to your speaks. Pls don't run a K in novice unless it's super simple like a cap k. Make sure your opps can respond though otherwise no edu :(.

Post round if you want but im not changing the vote.

Molly Callaghan Hire

Dean Carman Arlington High School

Last changed on Mon March 25, 2024 at 8:57 AM EDT

GENERAL THOUGHTS

Please speak at a conversational pace. If you spread, I will certainly get lost and the round will effectively be over for your side because I won't have enough on my sheet to extend in your favor.

I like off-time roadmaps. It helps me create a better flow, which in turn helps your case be evaluated properly.

I don't care if you debate while sitting or standing.

I'll be looking at my flow most of the time, which is why you're seeing the top of my head.

I don't flow cross-fire, so you need to bring it up in a speech if you want it to be considered.

The impact is probably not nuclear war and/or extinction.

Don't waste my time, or your opponents time by running a non-topical case. If you decide to waste everyone's time with debate theory or some other nonsense, I'll immediately score the round 26 - 30 against you, and leave.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I recognize that parent judges who've never debated handle situations differently. Below is my ever evolving list of how I handle situations that may come up. I provide this list because if one of these situations does occur, I don't want you to lose focus as you frantically try to make clear to me that X situation occurred, which leads to Y result.

CONSTRUCTIVE THOUGHTS

I weigh your case based on the time you commit to each contention or subpoint. If you spend 10 seconds on a contention or subpoint in Constructive, no amount of magnification in Summary will rehabilitate it to be the singular winning point.

I don't have a liberal bias or opposition to data from conservative leaning groups. Solid evidence is solid evidence.

REBUTTAL THOUGHTS

"Dropped arguments, are conceded" is not an automatic path to victory. It's still up to you to explain why their conceding a point leads to your victory. If the opposing debaters dropped or conceded a minor point you made, see CONSTRUCTIVE THOUGHTS before you collapse on it.

SUMMARY THOUGHTS

Collapsing your contentions is a logical, thoughtful and strategic part of debate. I will not hold it against you.

I will not consider new arguments and data sources in Summary. Exception is if you're rebutting something that was said in Rebuttal, then you can raise appropriate defenses but not launch a new counter argument. Weighing is not a new argument because it's an analysis of what has been said already. However, if you sneak a new argument into your weighing, I will discard it.

Debaters occasionally argue probability weighing. The challenge is when they ask me to insert bias in weighing the argument for them, something I will not do. Be mindful as to how much work you're asking me to do to render a decision in your favor.

FINAL FOCUS THOUGHTS

By this point in the debate I'm thinking about picking a winner and writing my RFD. You will be best served if your speech does that for me.

It's easier to follow your Final Focus if everything in it is from Summary.

Stating your case with passion is great, but arguing with my flow is not. Stay truthful with what happened, and lead me to the answer you want through weighing.

Owen Carragher Regis High School

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 1:43 PM EDT

Excellent debaters speak slowly, clearly and with good organization to their presentation.

Speak in plain English and avoid debate speak. Do not "resolve to negate" (no one says that in real life); tell me why I should find that the proposition is wrong or unwise (or the converse).

If you cite to an authority, make it clear what the authority is and why that authority is reliable. For example, it is not "Higgins 26 says". Rather, it could be: "As former Assistant Secretary of Defense John Higgins said in his Foreign Affairs article of _____."

You do not have a "card". You have evidence or opinions described by a third party source.

Be respectful to each other; do not interrupt during crossfire. If you ask a question, allow the opponent(s) to answer. Refer to public officials by their title and with respect in a way that no one knows your politics. For example, refer to them as President Trump, President Obama and President Biden.

If you say your opponents did not respond to your third contention (debate speak!) then make clear what that contention (better referred to as "point", "reason", "premise" etc.) is. The same holds true if you are addressing one of their points.

It is important that I be able to track the organization and logic flow of your arguments. I do that for the purpose of determining overall persuasiveness, not to create a checklist of everything that must be "covered". If there is a major point that I believe is unpersuasive based upon the totality of the arguments, then not every sub-point or sub-argument needs to be addressed. I am definitely not a fan of spreading, it generally shows weakness. To be clear though, if there is a strong argument that is not rebutted, that will weigh heavily in the determination of the winner.

Saying less but in a clear manner is far more important and effective than saying more in a way that cannot be understood.

Stand erect, and make eye contact with the judge(s) and note their reactions. Read my reactions to see if you are going too fast or speaking too softly. I do not care if you yell at me if that is what it takes for you to be loud enough to be heard -- and understood.

If you would like to e-mail me, use: owen.carragher@clydeco.us.

Most importantly:

HAVE FUN AND LEARN EACH TIME.

Ryan Carragher Regis High School

Maria Carter Ivy Bridge Academy

Mohamed Cassim Hire

William Caugherty McDowell HS

Zeynep Celiktas Lumos Debate Institute (MS)

Milan Chander Sidwell

Sid Chaudhry Newton South High School

Annie Chen Hunter College

Ben Chen Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS

Kenneth Chen Hire

Last changed on Sun March 17, 2024 at 11:46 AM CDT

Who am I: student at Harvard College (class of 27) and member of the college parli debate team here.

Experience: 1 year of PF (local) + 3 years of Congress (mostly national circuit) + 3 years of extemp + college parli (APDA, BP)

Overall:

Have fun and be kind.

PF:

I'm neither tech > truth or truth > tech, all arguments are introduced at some level of trueness and I'll buy them to the extent that they're warranted. Which means I can't fully blippy contentions/responses even if they're conceded.

Weigh your arguments (and I mean actual comparative weighing, not just using the word "weighing" and throwing around mechanisms)... otherwise I have to weigh them myself and that makes neither of us happy.

Signpost signpost signpost. Trust me you have enough time in your speech to do this properly.

Spreading: not a huge fan. Debate is a communication activity and if I can't understand what you're saying then you are not communicating effectively --> you are not persuading me. I can process information quickly and write quickly, and there's nothing wrong with a fast-paced speech, but I have my limits. If I couldn't get it on my flow then you never said it.

K/Theory: Everyone got the same resolution in advance and I would REALLY prefer that you debate it. There is a very low chance I will vote on Ks or theory. I am amenable to doing so if you give me legitimate reasons as to why it's relevant--it needs warranting and impacts like any other kind of argument. Try your own risk.

Framework: Give me an explicit one even if it's basic. You've taken the time to write out all your arguments, it's not much extra work to tell me what lens I should view them through. And it will make me a bigger fan of your arguments.

Off-time roadmaps: I don't mind them, but they are not a substitute for good organization within the actual speech itself, and I'd rather you just did that.

Congress:

It's called Congressional DEBATE for a reason. Beautiful speeches that don't clash or engage with arguments belong in speech tournament, not in Congress.

Please for the love of all that is good and holy:

Explain your links. If you do not connect the dots in your own argument I will not do it for you.
Explain your impacts. If you do not tell me why I should care about your argument, I just won't.
Weigh. You do not make your arguments in a vacuum, especially if you speak late. Please situate your argument in the context that it enters into and compare it to other arguments.

Round vision is key. If you know you know.

Authors/sponsors: PLEASE PLEASE explain both the problem in the status quo and how the legislation addresses it. That's your job.

Ke Cheng RD Independent None

Benjamin Cherel Cranbrook

Siva Chinnasamy Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Karun Chinthapatla Westborough High School

David Cho Clarksburg High School

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

Brian Choi Ivy Bridge Academy

Prithwiraj Choudhury Newton South High School

Tim Christensen Pinecrest High School

Caleb Arthur Chung Hire

Don Ciaravino Brother Rice High School

Last changed on Sun February 4, 2024 at 4:34 PM EDT

This may seem obvious to you, but to many debaters, it is not. There is a resolution to be debated. You must argue it and only it. Your contentions must be clear. Your subpoints must be clear. They ALL must directly tie back to your side (pro/con) of the resolution. Signposting is a must. Speaking fast doesn't endear you to me, nor does it impress me. I think it's a tactic used by unprepared debaters who don't think the judge is really listening. Additionally, please don't try to appeal to my emotions and tell me that I have a "moral obligation" to support your side. No, I don't. You have an obligation to successfully argue your side and should not ever ask a judge to insert personal feelings into a RFD.

I also do not like "off the wall" contentions that are merely used to attempt to sound different relative to other debaters. You must stay wedded to the resolution. I also do not like arrogance and an entitled attitude during debates. There are rules and the rules apply, equally, to everyone. You are not above them and will be docked speaker points for being disrespectful or arrogant. It's really not difficult to be kind.

Let's go back to the first paragraph. It's not my job to link for you. You make a claim, you prove it. It's called the burden of proof. So, if you're making claims, you better have the evidence and reasoning/warrants to tie all of it together. Having said that, if you do your job, but your opponent doesn't respond to that claim you made in their next speech, you win that claim (it's called burden of rejoinder and debaters ignore opposition claims all the time and this will be seen as a drop). Anyway, if I can flow, it's a good thing for you. You should be doing it too while you listen to your opposition. Make your links clear, please! Ensure that your links are connected to something the opposition actually argued (you wouldn't believe the strawmanning that I have heard over the years).

Next: evidence/cards/citations. Please have them prepared and shared with your opposition prior to the start of the debate. I don't like wasting time during a debate while a team takes several minutes to find the source for the card...it often leads to an unfair prep time disadvantage and I won't tolerate it. If you press your opponent's evidence, please make sure that I have access to this and that both sides are clear as to what part of the evidence is being called into question.

Framework: if you're going to use one, stick to it and extend it throughout the entire debate. Don't casually reference it; make it the essence of your constructives. The "utilitarian" framework is possibly the most popular one, but I would strongly prefer it if you don't just drop the term and then move on...you should be very specific as to what you mean.

Impact: Make it clear and reference it often. Don't just casually say it once and then never have any ties back to it...similar to how you should approach the framework. I've heard some really good non-unique impacts, but if you're going to try and attack your opponent for having a non-unique argument, make sure you're actually correct. Again, I really don't like buzzwords and using terminology just to use it because you may think the judge is only listening for them won't work with me. When you're levying an impact in your arguments, ask yourself "how probable is this?" You would be surprised if you stopped and thought before you spoke.

Rebuttals: a little bit repetitive here, but you have to respond to the claims made by your opposition in your very next speech...usually here. Don't bring them up later or you will be docked and, likely, lose. If your opponent argues contentions x, y, and z in their first constructive, but you only address contentions x and z in first cross or rebuttal, that's a drop by you and they win on contention y. If you wait until summary or second cross, that's a problem for you. Rebuttal speeches are meant to do exactly that; they are not meant to make new arguments, nor is final focus for that matter. Don't do it.

Off-time Roadmaps: I don't mind them and if you need to verbalize what you're planning on doing, that's fine. Keep them short please.

Oh, one more thing: don't be top heavy in your overview. What I mean by this is please do not spend lots of time on your own arguments but not answer (or shoddily answer) your opponent arguments. Please don't do this. You can give me a re-cap, but make it fast. For example, during summary you should prioritize answering the key arguments addressed by the second rebuttal speaker in addition to giving me a brief overview of your own arguments...just ensure that there is balance here.

Eliza Clark Stuyvesant High School

Joshua Cohen Newton South High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:35 PM EDT

EMAIL: jcohen1964@gmail.com

I judge Public Forum Debate 95% of the time. I occasionally judge LD and even more occasionally, Policy.

A few items to share with you:

(1) I can flow *somewhat* faster than conversational speed. As you speed up, my comprehension declines.

(2) I may not be familiar with the topic's arguments. Shorthand references could leave me in the dust. For example, "On the economy, I have three responses..." could confuse me. It's better to say, "Where my opponents argue that right to work kills incomes and sinks the economy, I have three responses...". I realize it's not as efficient, but it will help keep me on the same page you are on.

(3) I miss most evidence tags. So, "Pull through Smith in 17..." probably won't mean much to me. Reminding me of what the evidence demonstrated works better (e.g. "Pull through the Smith study showing that unions hurt productivity").

(4) In the interest of keeping the round moving along, please be selective about asking for your opponent's evidence. If you ask for lots of evidence and then I hear little about it in subsequent speeches, it's a not a great use of time. If you believe your opponent has misconstrued many pieces of evidence, focus on the evidence that is most crucial to their case (you win by undermining their overall position, not by showing they made lots of mistakes).

(5) I put a premium on credible links. Big impacts don't make up for links that are not credible.

(6) I am skeptical of "rules" you might impose on your opponent (in contrast to rules imposed by the tournament in writing) - e.g., paraphrasing is never allowed and is grounds for losing the round. On the other hand, it's fine and even desirable to point out that your opponent has not presented enough of a specific piece of evidence for its fair evaluation, and then to explain why that loss of credibility undermines your opponent's position. That sort of point may be particularly relevant if the evidence is technical in nature (e.g., your opponent paraphrases the findings of a statistical study and those findings may be more nuanced than their paraphrasing suggests).

(7) I am skeptical of arguments suggesting that debate is an invalid activity, or the like, and hence that one side or the other should automatically win. If you have an argument that links into your opponent's specific position, please articulate that point. I hope to hear about the resolution we have been invited to debate.

Melanie Cohn Summit HS

Last changed on Mon February 12, 2024 at 5:19 AM EDT

I am a coach for the Summit High School debate program.

For e-mail chain: melaco@gmail.com. Speechdrop is also great.

School Affiliation: Summit HS, NJ

Number of Years I’ve been judging debate since 2018.

Number of Years I Competed in Speech/Forensic Activities: 4 years (A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.…)

If you read nothing else, read this: I am a flow judge. (IMO, truth does not exist within the confines of a debate round. The setting of the resolution is the beginning of world creation, which you will build upon and participate in during the round and that is outside the confines of "the real world." I fall short of being a tech judge, but I lean tech.) I expect teams to warrant and clearly show why arguments should be voted on, including weighing. Be very clear in your final speeches on why you are winning the round. State clearly what your path to the ballot is. I want to judge without intervention, so you need to give me the exact reason to vote for you on the flow. I prefer for you, in your final speech, to tell me the RFD you would like me to write.

I don't vote on anything in cross, unless it has been brought into a speech. I don't vote on new arguments brought up too late in round.

Happy to clarify any of my prefs, ask before round begins.

Organization: I need you to be clear and organized in order for me to follow you to your best advantage. Sign-posting in speeches and line-by-line in rebuttal is always appreciated, it ensures that I'm following you adequately.

Plans/Kritik/Theory: I went to a critical theory-oriented art school MFA program, so no surprise, I love theory, kritik and tricks because it reminds me of grad school. I have a pretty broad background on much of the literature. That being said, it's good to consider me a flay judge when presenting theory/kritik/tricks. You need to completely understand your argument (and not just reading something you found on the wiki or that a friend gave you), and it needs to be clearly presented during the debate in an accessible way. I need well-explained, warranted voters. Please warrant your implications. Be very clear on why I should vote for you.

Timers and Prep: I generally run a timer, but I expect you to also be keeping time. When you run prep, I like to know how much time you think you've run, so I can compare it to my own time. Also, if you pause prep to call a card, I expect all prep to stop while the card is being searched for, then prep can start again when the card is found.

Everything Else:
Cards (where applicable): I prefer factual, carded evidence. I accept tight academic reasoning. I accept published opinions of recognized, experienced professionals within their realm of knowledge. If a card is called by a team, and the other team can't find it, I'm going to strike it from consideration. I rarely call cards unless there is a dispute about the card. I really hate judge intervention, so I flow on how cards are argued by the debaters. Generally speaking, I will not call a card based on disputes that are only raised during cross. I will only call a card for two reasons: 1. if there is a dispute about a card between the debaters brought up in a speech and it is an important dispute for the judging of the debate or 2. if the other team has given me reason to believe evidence is fake or fraudulent. Dishonesty (such as fabricating research sources) will be reported to tab immediately.

Judge Disclosure: I personally feel it is good for a judge to disclose, because it keeps us accountable to the teams that we are judging. As a judge, I should be able to give you a good RFD after the round. So, if tournament rules and time allow, I don't mind sharing results with you after I've finished submitting for the round. However, I will not disclose if that is the rule for a particular tournament or if there are time constraints that need to be taken into consideration.

Judging after 8pm: I'm a morning person. If it is after 8pm, I am probably tired. Clarity in your speeches is always important, but takes on even more importance after 8pm. Talk to me like I'm half-asleep, because I might be.

SPEAKER POINTS:

Default Speaker Point Breakdown:
30: Excellent job, I think you are in the top two percent of debaters at this tournament.

29: Very strong ability. You demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and ability to use analytical skills to clarify the round

28: Ability to function well in the round, however at some point, analysis or organization could have been better.

27: Lacking organization and/or analysis in this debate round.

26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. May have made a large error.

25: An incident of offensive or rude behavior.

Neal Collins Regis High School

Michael Combest Castle View High School None

Steve Combs Myers Park High School

Siobhan Connolly Ivy Bridge Academy

Deirdre Corbett University High School

Charles Cortez Ivy Bridge Academy None

Neo Curry Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 8:46 AM CDT

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com and strakejesuitpf@mail.strakejesuit.org

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

Tech>Truth – I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted. Read any arguments you want UNLESS IT IS EXCLUSIONARY IN ANY WAY. I feel like teams don't think I'm being genuine when I say this, but you can literally do whatever you want.

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Plans, Counter Plans, Disads, some basic Kritiks (Cap, Militarism, and stuff of the sort), meta-weighing, most framework args that PFers can come up with.

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy, Non-T Affs.

Don't think this means you can't read these arguments in front of me. Just explain them well.

Speaking and Speaker Points

I give speaks based on strategy and I start at a 28.

Go as fast as you want unless you are gonna read paraphrased evidence. Send me a doc if you’re going to do that. Also, slow down on tags and author names.

I will dock your speaks if you take forever to pull up a piece of evidence. To avoid this, START AN EMAIL CHAIN.

You and your partner will get +.3 speaker points if you disclose your broken cases on the wiki before the round. If you don't know how to disclose, facebook message me before the round and I can help.

Summary

Extend your evidence by the author's last name. Some teams read the full author name and institution name but I only flow author last names so if you extend by anything else, I’ll be lost.

EVERY part of your argument should be extended (Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact, and warrant for each).

If going for link turns, extend the impact; if going for impact turns, extend the link.

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

I require responses to theory/T in the next speech. ex: if theory is read in the AC i require responses in the NC or it's conceded

Defense that you want to concede should be conceded in the speech immediately following when it was read.

Because of the changes in speech times, defense should be in every speech.

In a util round, please don't treat poverty as a terminal impact. It's only a terminal impact if you are reading an oppression-based framework or something like that.

I don't really care where you speak from. I also don't care what you wear in the round. Do whatever makes you most comfortable.

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Christine Dandenau Pinecrest High School

Linh Dang Phillips Academy Andover

Brian Daniel Grand Oaks High School

Olena Danilchenko Concord Carlisle High School

Gavin Datta Lumos Debate Institute (MS)

Theo Datta Hire

Eric Denby Phillips Academy Andover

Jose Denis Nova High School

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 1:01 PM EDT

About Me:

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

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

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

Please utilize off time roadmaps.

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

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

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

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

More "techy" stuff:

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

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

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

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

LD Stuff:

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

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

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

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

Christoph Diasio Pinecrest High School

Alex Dingle Nightingale Bamford None

Lindsay Donovan Milton Academy

Last changed on Sun May 26, 2024 at 8:19 AM EDT

I am a speech AND debate coach for Milton Academy. I am an experienced PF judge who values the key principles of PF. I have been judging PF since 2011, and I debated in 2007 - 2011. Again, Policy/LD /jargon have no home in PF. I understand some jargon is useful, but not all. Be clear, be concise. Do not use framework just for the sake of having framework, don't just state a weighing mechanism and assume that puts it on the flow, do not give me a super lengthy off time road map, that sort of thing. Add me on email chains: lindsay_donovan@milton.edu

I vote primarily on comprehensive analysis, on well-supported AND well-reasoned, "real-world" links, which are the logic building blocks to your impact (no matter how large or larger in scope they may be than your opponents). I do not like source wars, or taking long periods of time to call for evidence or look at evidence, especially out of prep time. If your only strategy is to call into question the validity of evidence, you will most likely not earn my vote. I will primarily vote on the flow, but I think persuasion is the crux of debate and can make flow better... and can stick out more to me than just an extended tag on the flow.

Substance > jargon

Clarity > speed

Argument and evidence distinctions > "our cards are better read them"

Analysis > impacts

Quality > quantity of evidence

Theory/K/what have you: If Theory or K is fair, understandable, and well reasoned I can follow it. But in general I find most theory debates unfair in nature, most people just use it as a tactic to win and have no heart in it for the sake of smart argumentation. Notably I will not vote for Disclosure theory. It is a norm, not a rule :)

Pet Peeves:

Tech > Truth (If you are saying something blatantly not true or distorting/mis-paraphrasing your opponent's evidence I will mark you down).
Nuclear war impacts, unclear warranting or no warranting only evidence.
Overly aggressive/rude tactics. Don't be rude. There is a difference between being assertive and rude. I tend to vote for more calm, collected, and cordial teams.
"Collapsing" feels like a fancy way to say dropping all your points.... I don't like it. Why bring up points in the first place so easily to discard? Run a 1 contention case then... Never concede anything!
Also - I hate Solvency (it is a Policy concept, and PF does not have the burden of proving/disproving solvency as a voting issue unless the resolution SPECIFICALLY calls for it.) This means, do not ask how they "solve for" whatever point or that I should downvote teams who cannot completely solve issues.

Spreading and Flow: I can flow SOMEWHAT faster than conversational speed. Public Forum is NOT Policy or LD debate. If you spread I do not flow. I do not believe that PFers should spread AT ALL, even for a “flow” judge. If you cannot speak well and argue well, then you are not competing in this event at your best ability.

Don't be malicious please! It should go without saying, do not say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist etc. or you can expect to get 0 speaker points and a loss. I am an educator first, so I will err on the side of letting the debate continue if someone used certain language that becomes an issue, and correct ignorance afterwards. I will intervene when I feel the safety of the participants becomes an issue (or if you ask me to! Always ask your judge to stop a round if you feel unsafe).

Rana Dotson The PotomacSchool

Last changed on Wed February 28, 2024 at 6:54 AM EDT

International Relations Specialist for US Department of Labor working to fight forced labor, child labor and human trafficking.

George Washington University Grad with certificate in Non Profit Management

University of Maryland Grad with Master of Public Public, International Security and Economic Policy specialization

Tuskegee University Grad with Bachelor of Arts in Political Science

Former Lincoln Douglas debater

Married to a debate coach, Julian Dotson.

As a flay judge, my approach to evaluating debates is informed by both theoretical knowledge across various formats, including LD, PF, CX, and speech events, as well as practical experiences in these domains. I believe in creating an environment that fosters respectful and engaging discourse.

Speaker Conduct:

I value a calm and composed speaking style. It is crucial for speakers to articulate their arguments clearly and audibly, ensuring that their message is effectively communicated. While passion is appreciated, maintaining a respectful and controlled demeanor contributes to a more constructive debate.

Argumentation:

I encourage debaters to present well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence. The quality of evidence, its relevance to the topic, and the strategic deployment of arguments are key factors in my evaluation. Logical coherence and the ability to address counterarguments thoughtfully are highly valued.

Clarity and Structure:

A well-organized speech is instrumental in conveying ideas effectively. I appreciate debaters who provide clear signposts, adhere to logical structures, and create a coherent narrative throughout their speeches. A clear roadmap enhances both the understanding and flow of the debate.

Cross-Examination:

In formats that involve cross-examination, I appreciate debaters who engage in thoughtful questioning. It is an opportunity to demonstrate a deep understanding of the issues at hand and to strategically challenge opponents' positions. Respectful cross-examination is more productive and contributes positively to overall speaker performance.

Time Management:

Effective time management is crucial. Debaters should be mindful of allotted time for speeches and adhere to established time limits. Well-paced speeches contribute to a smoother and more organized debate round.

Adaptability:

I appreciate debaters who can adapt their strategies based on the flow of the debate. Flexibility in responding to unexpected arguments and the ability to adjust one's approach contribute to a debater's overall effectiveness.

Respect and Sportsmanship:

Respect for opponents, judges, and the activity itself is fundamental. Demonstrating sportsmanship, regardless of the competitive intensity, is highly valued. Creating a positive and inclusive debating environment is essential for fostering a healthy and enriching experience for all participants.

I look forward to engaging in intellectually stimulating debates and witnessing the skills, strategies, and passion that debaters bring to the round. Remember that every debate is an opportunity for growth and learning.

I flow but I'm not impressed by speed and I'm not up on the latest jargon.

Make sure you have clear warrants and links to your impacts and the resolution.

Send a case doc to my email Ranadotson@gmail.com

Be polite in Cross

Don't spread; speed is a no go. will even evaluate Speed theory if your opps are spreading; TKO.

Progressive args and Ks are a no go.

I don't evaluate disclosure theory so just don't run it; seems like a cheap strategy.

I consider ivi

Ask me about my job if you are interested in foreign policy!

Have fun and debate.

Colin Downes Sidwell

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 7:17 PM EDT

I am the Upper School Debate Coach at Sidwell Friends School. My email is downesc@sidwell.edu — please put me on the email chain if there is one.

Some stuff you probably care about:

Ks, K affs, performance, and other, non-normative ways of engaging with debate and the resolution are fun and fine in my personal view, but I've voted for framework before and I have no doubt I will again. Even if I think you're being a little bit of a cop about it. I can be convinced of a lot in the space of the round about the proper purposes and form of the activity, but I think the traditional arguments for the virtues of topical, plan-focused, switch-side debate are substantial.

Speed is ok. Clarity is essential. Paperless debate has gotten debaters into some very bad habits, among which is thinking that they can rely on judges to read speech docs to reconstruct basically unintelligible 1ACs and 1NCs. I won't be doing that. This is an oral advocacy competition. It's impossible to articulate a brightline on this but them's the breaks. So consider being conservative on this front. That goes double if the debate is online: you're just flatly not as clear as if we were sitting in a room together and I need you to slow down to compensate for that.

Some stuff I care about:

Cross ex matters. It is a speech, it's binding, we named the event after it, I pay very close attention to it and I firmly believe rounds can be won and lost in cross. It's also just the most dynamic and fun part of the round for me. I have given up on trying to fight for closed cross but just know it's very embarrassing if your 1N can't answer basic questions about the K alt or your 1A can't answer basic questions about your solvency mechanism and if that's obvious it'll be reflected in speaks.

I will vote on defense. A well-articulated, warranted, and contextualized no link argument extended into the last rebuttal can absolutely get me to give zero weight to an impact where the link story is poorly articulated and badly warranted. Relatedly, I will vote on presumption and feel strongly that the aff has the initial burden of persuasion. I realize this all makes me sound a million years old. I don't care.

I care about being told a coherent story. Contradictory off-case neg positions turn me off for that reason, even if you collapse down to some kind of plausibly non-contradictory position in the 2NR and are feeding me a "testing the aff from multiple perspectives good" line. Performative contradiction arguments or clever cross applications between flows are attractive to me for similar reasons.

Presentation matters. A good presentation in a policy round often isn't the same thing as good presentation in other forms of oral advocacy. But you fundamentally want to make me like your debate persona, and if I do I will be looking for reasons to pick you up. If you come off as cruel or a bully, I'll be looking for reasons to drop you.

I think evidence violations of various kinds are, unfortunately, pervasive in PF, as a consequence of bad disclosure and evidence exchange practices combined with the use of paraphrasing. In part as a response to this concerning state of affairs, I hold students to a high standard on evidence ethics and have a comparatively low threshold for voting on this stuff or signing a ballot on an evidence violation. I will ask for evidence I think sounds fake or misrepresented. I will take an evidence ethics issue to tab on my own initiative even if not raised by your opponents.

I try to evaluate PF according to its own standards rather than just being a transplanted policy hack (which is admittedly what I am). To my mind a good PF round should look not dissimilar from talking heads on a cable news show discussing current events. It should be intelligible and engaging to an educated and informed lay audience. And that means this is not an event that should privilege a fast, technical, evidence-driven style of debating. I'm perfectly capable of flowing and judging fast, technical rounds, but I am flatly not going to hold debaters to the same kind of standards on this stuff that I would in a policy round and will afford significantly more leeway to less technical presentations than I might in CX.

For related reasons, I have a very high threshold for voting on theory in PF. If you do not have a credible in-round abuse story or it looks like you are cynically using highly technical theory arguments to bully a less technical team I will be spending the entirety of the debate looking for any halfway justifiable excuse to drop you.

Courtesy and promptness in satisfying requests for cards are something that I will take into account in speaker points. As far as I am concerned (and per NSDA rules), your opponents are well within their rights to ask for every piece of evidence you read or paraphrase, which you must then promptly provide to them in a manner which clearly shows, through e.g. highlighting or underlining, what portions of the evidence you read or paraphrased.

Congress

If you are giving a speech that is not an authorship speech and it contains no clash, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech. If you are giving a speech that is not an authorship speech and you appear to be reading the speech in its entirety, with no extemporaneous elements at all, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech. If your speech is substantially repetitive of prior speeches, you will not get more than a 4/6 score on that speech.

I will generally rank a PO who effectively manages the chamber at #3. Other than the PO, I rank largely based on my scoring of speeches.

I never did this event, don't coach this event, and have judged it only a handful of times. I do have a background in philosophy; it's what I got my undergraduate degree in. You'll probably find some helpful things under my CX section. I'll do my best.

Who are you?

I debated CX at Scituate High School in the conventional stock issues focused style of the Southeastern Massachusetts Debate League, then at UMASS where I turned into a K debater while learning everything I actually know about debate from Jillian Marty. Following a hiatus from debate I was an assistant coach for policy debate at James Madison High School in Virginia from 2018 to 2022. I have been the debate coach for Sidwell Friends School since fall 2022.

In terms of my non-debate life, I am among other things a Christian, a socialist, and a practicing class action plaintiff's lawyer.

Farren Drummond Ivy Bridge Academy

Madison Eagan Hire None

Joy Fan Plano West Sr High School

Jack Flanigan Regis High School

gabriel frasca Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS None

Debra Friedman Olympic Heights Community High School None

William Funderburk Landmark High School

Jagathi Gade Potomac Debate Academy

Priya Gampa Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Ananya Ganesh Hire

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 2:03 PM EDT

I am a sophomore at Harvard competing in APDA and British Parliamentary. I primarily did WSDC and BP in high school. I have no affiliation with any school in the US.

Rules

Be respectful. This doesn't just mean "don't be rude", it means do your best to create a welcoming and inclusive environment where everyone, regardless of debate experience or identity, can feel safe, comfortable, and empowered to perform to the best of their capabilities.

Paradign/General Preferences

I do not have major PF, Lincoln-Douglas, or Congress experience - this means that I am not familiar with common buzzwords/jargon. Please ensure the way you are expressing your arguments takes this into account because I will not be able to credit what I don't understand.
I am okay with responses that go in the order of the flow - I am also okay with responses that are sorted into themes or that go in any different order. As long as I can comprehend the point you are responding to and the point you are making, I will credit it.
As a judge, I will attempt to position myself as the "average voter". This, for me, describes a person who is moderately informed about the events in the world but does not know their nuances/details. This means that any reference to articles/papers or assertion of details about the situation will not be credited, especially if the other team is able to provide robust argumentation.
Please weigh. I will DEFINITELY keep an ear out for weighing and take it into account in my adjudication.
I do as a person believe that human suffering should be minimised. In the absence of alternate weighing, I will default to "which side causes the most benefit/least harm to humanity as a whole". However, I am always ready to listen to and be swayed towards other ways of judging the debate.
I adore puns. The worse the better.
I do not think human extinction is likely to occur. I have a slight preference towards arguments about higher probability impacts as opposed to arguments about nuclear war.

Ved Ganesh Hire

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 3:55 PM CDT

Put me on the email chain: vg.nautilus@gmail.com

Dulls HS '23: debated policy all four years + three tournaments in PF

Policy

Prefs:

fyo BUT a speaks fairy

In order of decreasing frequency, rounds I most often debated are:

K Aff v. Fwk
Policy Aff v. K
K aff v. K
Policy v. Policy
Theory stuff ig

Things you can actually change before round that would help me:

I do not know the topic sorry :,(
Clarity >>>>>>>>
Give the important args (turns, perms, DAs, links) actual names
Lots of pen time between flows -- blow raspberries between sheets idc just give me time
Send analytics if you're comfortable
I flow cross + it's binding
T-USfg: functional limits check and structural fairness overwriting procedural fairness [attached reason that matters] are persuasive to me.
Don't judge kick
I don't like when people spam perms -- more than 2 in the 2AC and I may just not flow the rest — oh also an actual perm text (like literally: perm do [actual plan text] and [the parts of the CA that would be executed in the world of the perm]) will get a speaks boost and is probably also helpful when like ~articulating the world of the perm~
Offense/Defense paradigm
Condo is occasionally bad!
Slow down on theory, topicality, framework

Probs pretty tech but not worth wasting your strikes on even if you're a lay debater.

Prog: dislike theory/Ks in PF but also like intervention probably bad so:

I'll evaluate everything but I'll intervene at the level of speaks (e.g., a valiant effort by a lay debater facing prog will be rewarded; an LD transplant reading theory or Ks badly will not).

Things you can actually change before round that would help me:

Set-up an email chain; send all cards for every speech (the underlined, bolded, and highlighted versions) before hand -- it won't count as prep time unless it takes you egregiously long.
Label major arguments (e.g., "the credibility turn," "intervention turn," etc.) or at the VERY LEAST number your arguments.
Probably more partial to no-brink = no-impact than most PF judges
Offense/defense paradigm
Asserting your impact has a "greater magnitude, scope, and probability than theirs" is not impact weighing. If y'all are going to insist on "quantifiable impacts" please at MINIMUM give me two numbers (yours and your opponents) in the impact weighing + a reason why yours matters more. I do not, however, think quantification is necessary to building a compelling impact.
I flow cross + it's binding
Kritiks must have a topic link
Speed will probably not be a problem for me

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

Notes for novices:

Roadmap: the order in which you will go to arguments during the debate, essentially a table of contents. This is given before you start the time to your speech (eg. "The order is: the Biz Con DA, Case, the DoS CP, and the K.")

Off vs. On Case: Off case positions are either DAs, CPs, Ks, or T shells. On case positions are Case Defense, Impact Turns, Case Turns, Solvency Deficits, etc. I guess technically anything (except CPs and probably T shells) can be an on-case position - it's just a matter of which sheet you want the judge to flow on.

Jianmin Gao Newton South High School

Dhwani Garg Hire

Robert Garza Hire

jing ge Hire

Seldron Geziben Newton South High School

Sebastian Glos Lake Highland Preparatory School

Last changed on Sat May 25, 2024 at 4:47 AM EDT

NCFL NATS please speak up, these rooms are pretty loud and I want to be able to hear the arguments you are making!

lake highland '21, fsu '25.

put me on the chain: sebastian.glosfl@gmail.com or make a speech drop. (speech drop > email chains) try and set this up before the round.

4 years pf, 3rd year competing in nfa-ld, president of debate at fsu ( if wanna join lmk! )

TLDR: tech > truth, speed is fine, weigh warrant, signpost, try not to be blippy.

How I evaluate rounds:

1st: Go through all pieces of offense extended into summary then final, then determine whether every piece of the argument is extended properly. If offense is not extended properly, I have a pretty low threshold for evaluating it.

2nd: Then I look for defense on each piece of offense. I only really evaluate defense if it's terminal, otherwise it better be weighed really well for me to properly evaluate it. If there is no weighing done on a piece of offense, then I default to the path of least resistance. However, if weighing is done I look to the argument that is weighed comparatively and smart (some smart ones include prereqs, link-ins, and short circuits). At this point, I will also look at framing and see if it applies to the round.

Overall Specifics:

Speed: I am fine with speed, if you are CLEAR. However, I find speed unnecessary; good debaters can win arguments and frontline properly without the need to speak fast. Plus, for the most part, at least, the faster you speak, the blipper your arguments get. I will clear you if you are not being clear, but that has never been an issue in a PF round ive judged.

Weighing: Weighing is one of the first thing I evaluate on any flow. However, if the weighing is not comparative and warranted correctly, it will just seem like an extension of your argument. If you are going to weigh, please use pre-reqs, link-ins, and anything on the link level. Also, weighing responses in rebuttal it makes my job easier. Carded weighing > analytics.
Progressive: I have came to the conclusion that if you are at a varsity national tournament, you should be prepared to debate some type of progressive argumentation. Now, this doesnt mean run theory or a K on some novices. Specifics: K's better have a good alt that you can explain well (or it's just a DA and will be evaluated as such) + framing that is well explained in the round or don't expect me to vote on it. I would say my understanding of K's mainly comes from NFA-LD, which is more similar to HS policy and I don't know what norms exist in PF for such arguments. I have read some Cap, Set-Col, Virilio, Rhetoric K's, Security, and psycho, would claim to be an expert on any of these tho. Theroy is okay as long as there is an actual proven violation in the round. I rather not judge some bs theory debate that probably doesn't accomplish any real norm setting. T is fun but never read :(

Extensions: Many teams think that if they frontline case, that just counts as an extension; I do not believe this is true. I prefer that there are explicit extensions made, and I will not flow through arguments without good extensions. Good extensions extend warrants and internal links.
Collapsing: Collapsing arguments early makes your narrative so much cleaner, and also, I don't have to spam extensions and card names all over my flow.
Evidence: I will not read evidence unless explicitly told to. I aim to minimize judge intervention via evidence
post round me, idc.

Things I do not like:

Overviews: I do not like second rebuttal offensive overviews or new contentions. I will evaluate the arguments, but I will have a super low threshold for responses, and your speech will likely reflect this.

If you are blatantly racist, ableist, homophobic, sexist, etc., to either your opponents or within your argumentation, I will hand you an L and tank your speech. Strike me if that's an issue.

Things I like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skfjeGfX_5I&ab_channel=Tay-K
house music.

Message me on FB here for questions or ask me before the round!

Zachary Goldstein Olympic Heights Community High School

Venu Goli Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Julie Gollob Newton South High School

Ryan Gosling SUCCESS ACADEMY HUDSON YARDS

Bruce Gottlieb Hunter College

Luke Graham Landmark High School

Zac Grant Myers Park High School

Last changed on Tue June 11, 2024 at 5:06 AM EDT

In the 20th century, I was a reasonably successful college debater and university coach.

Written judge paradigms were just coming into use back then. My favorite was from Tuna Snider. It read as follows:

"We gather. You debate. I decide."

That seems a great place to start. Here are a few things that may be helpful.

SPEED -- Though I have debated with and against speakers as fast as you can imagine, there is NO WAY I will read/follow a document to understand you during your speech. Be audible, signpost well, and have the strategic chops to parse out a winning solution. It is up to you, not me, to make sure you're being clear -- I never say "clear." Unless you're good at it (really good at it) spreading is annoying to me. That goes double if we're in a format other than CX, and triple if you're beating up on a less experienced opponent.

STYLE -- You're giving a speech. I'm an audience. Read the room. Make me glad I showed up to hear you. Be courteous to your opponents. I understand the round may crackle with rivalry. Lean into it with grace. Most of my best friends are the people I debated with and against back in the day. I won't ask to see any of your materials unless they're verbally contested, or I'm curious. This is a speaking contest, not an essay contest.

SUBSTANCE -- When it's clear you have a solid grasp of the subject matter, that's persuasive. Next level is you hearing and understanding your opponent, and returning on-point replies, with or without evidence. Hyperdrive is when you carry all that through to the final speeches and articulate a genuine solution to the debate.

THEORY/K's, etc. -- I will listen to what you have to say, if you give me sufficient reason to do so, at a pace I can digest. That said, the further you stray from simply affirming or negating the resolution, it's exponentially more likely I'll agree with your opponent's reaction. Thus, if you happen to find yourself defending against some esoteric K or theory onslaught, answer your opponent's argument as best you can. I'm likely to agree with you.

Let's learn, compete, and have fun!

Ali Graziosi Thales Academy Rolesville Speech and Debate

Daniela Greenburg Pompano Beach High School

Mark Greenburg Pompano Beach High School

James Grey Montville

Spencer Grosso Ransom Everglades

Last changed on Sat May 11, 2024 at 8:56 AM EDT

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

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

Conflicts of Interest/Background

Debated PF on the national circuit for 5 years at Nova Middle/High School.

On my 3rd year Coaching PF at Ransom Everglades High School.

Flow Judge

-Tech>Truth, debate is a game.

-Speed is fine, I’ll yell clear up to twice in one speech, If you continue to be unintelligible after that, it’s on you.

PF rules:

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

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

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

Philosophies:

-I don't believe anything dropped is automatically 100% true. I do believe anything that is WARRANTED that is dropped is 100% true. read that twice. So, when you postround me because you wonder why I voted for the "COLD DROPPED TURN" that you spent 3 seconds blipping in final, that's why.

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

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

-I heavily despise exclusion. If I can tell your opponents either have access problems or are brand new to debate and you’re dumping 350+ WPM speech docs, reading something progressive, or debating in any way that is clearly designed to make your opponents unable to contest you, I'll doc speaks.

Evidence Rules:

-I don't evaluate problems with evidence that are not specifically pointed out to me, so there's never a reason to not send me evidence. Lets please work together to improve PF evidence standards. Use a chain, and put all your cards on it. PLEASE.

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

On Arguments:

If role of the ballot is absent in any speech other than rebuttal, I default to Policy/Framework>Kritik>theory>tricks.

Framework:

-Cool stuff.

Kritiks:

-I like Ks. Topical links are cool but general literature is fine.

Theory:

-Theory needs to exist to prevent real abuse, so I don't love generic theory that I see as being brought into the round to give you an excuse to not debate the topic and get a win (dates, disclosure, paraphrasing etc.) that being said I’m open to all those shells, if you warrant it, win it, and weigh successfully why I should vote off it, I’ll vote off it.

-In PF, I don’t require responses to theory in the very next speech(if it’s read in 1st constructive, I don’t require a response until 2nd rebuttal) I don't even care if you tell me why I should require responses early. I say this because the warranting for such a requirement tends to be A) time skew and B) by waiting to respond, our opponents are "silencing the issues we speak about". Both of these are valid but they apply to any argument. If the 1st speaking team makes a policy argument, its equally unfair or silencing for the second speaking team to wait a speech to engage. All arguments are created equal.

Tricks:

-Silliness.

-Some are better than others, should be obvious which ones I'm talking about

-My bar for responses is on the FLOOR. This stuff basically needs to be dropped for me to even see it.

Presumption:

-Not automatic. If u tell me to presume the first speaking team cuz its unfair and u give me even a little warranting ill oblige if the other spheres are somehow even. Unless u argue that, I won't do it. I'd rather sift through the flow and find literally any other way to vote.

Speaker Points:

-The speaker point system is the scurge of debate, it perpetuates all types of prejudices, is anti educational, and unfair. I refuse to legitimize it. They NEED to be abolished and break seeds NEED to be determined on opp wins. (If you're curious why I believe this, feel free to ask!)

-You start with a 30. Speaks are docked only for malpractice(rude, prejudice, debating in a way I deem as harmful) If you don’t commit any sins, you get a 30. If the tournament doesnt let me tie it, ill do 30, 29.9, 29.8, 29.7.

-Some tabrooms have silenced my protest of this harmful system and threatened me with removal for giving all 30s. cough cough novice states 2024 at apopka. If that happens, my points will all vary between 28 and 29.

I'll be timing because it gets really awkward when teams disagree on time, but there is no reason I should have to get involved with time. Don't steal prep, time everything for you and your opponents. If my time is relied on to settle an argument, something has gone very wrong.

Ambika Grover Hire

Jim Guarnieri Newsome High School

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2024 at 4:27 PM EDT

Looking for good argument, not technical wins. I.e. I don’t care about dropped contentions if the dropped contention was weak and other, stronger contentions were addressed well. Intellectual, evidentiary, and logical domination wins over tit-for-tat flow.

Technical losses are stupid. You’ll never see my ballot say “You didn’t frontline, therefore you lose.” Debate is still about persuasion. Don’t get me wrong; frontlining, collapsing, etc., are all good persuasive techniques to be used in debate. But the failure to use them won’t necessarily or automatically lose you the round… it just might affect the persuasive effect of your argument. If you can still persuade that your side wins without using all the specific techniques, even against a team that does use them, you’ll still get my ballot.

Cross should be for either a) establishing a framework (e.g. "Can we agree that [term from the topic] means [definition]?"), b) make a point, or c) set up a point you get to make later. I'm not scoring cross per-se, but if you run a tight cross and either make a good point or use an answer later to good effect, it'll go to speaks. Being a jerk in cross will *also affect speaks.

Yes, I want to be on an evidence thread if you start one. (tampalaw@gmail.com) Yes, you can speak fast but don't policy spread me. Kritiks and mathematical annihilation arguments (e.g. "Even if it's only a 0.001% chance, nuclear war means extinction therefore we outweigh") should be used sparingly and only if *truly warranted and supported.

PS I am perfectly fine with paraphrasing. Heaven help you if it's not fair, of course... but if it is I prefer not to have a ridiculous block quote from some article. Be persuasive... not technical.

LD- know your VC. Understand how, e.g., utilitarianism works or what social contract means in the context of your argument before hanging your entire argument on it. Do the actual analysis using your VC. Also do the analysis using the opponent’s VC if you can. Cross is good for discovery, but also for points.

Neha gupta BASIS Peoria

Ramesh Gupta Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Vihaan Gupta Hire None

William Hahn Hire

Jayoung Han Bergen Debate Club

Sharma Harihara Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Sue Harvey Newton South High School

Kaitlin Hasenbeck-Meyer Fenwick High School

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2024 at 7:37 AM CDT

As a debate judge, my primary responsibility is to assess the arguments presented by each team and determine which team has made the most convincing case. In order to make an informed decision, I will be looking for the following qualities:

Clarity: I expect each speaker to present their arguments in a clear and concise manner, using language that is easy to understand. If a speaker is not clear, it will be difficult for me to follow their arguments and evaluate them effectively. I do not like spreading.
Logical coherence: I expect each team to present a logical argument that builds from one point to the next. The argument should be grounded in evidence and should avoid logical fallacies. If a team presents a coherent and logical argument, it will be easier for me to assess the strength of their position.
Evidence: I expect each team to support their arguments with evidence. This evidence should be relevant, accurate, and persuasive. If a team presents strong evidence, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their argument.
Rebuttal: I expect each team to engage with their opponents' arguments and present effective rebuttals. This means addressing the key points made by their opponents and demonstrating why their own argument is stronger. If a team presents strong rebuttals, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their position.
Delivery: I expect each speaker to deliver their arguments in a confident and engaging manner. This means using vocal variety, gestures, and eye contact to capture the attention of the audience. If a speaker is engaging, it will be easier for me to assess the strength of their argument.
Cross-examination: I expect each team to engage in cross-examination in a respectful and constructive manner. This means asking relevant and probing questions, and responding to questions in a clear and concise manner. If a team engages in cross-examination effectively, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their argument.
Respect: I expect each team to show respect for their opponents and for the debate process. This means avoiding personal attacks and staying focused on the issues at hand. If a team shows respect, it will be easier for me to evaluate the strength of their argument.

In summary, I will be evaluating each team based on their clarity, logical coherence, evidence, rebuttal, delivery, cross-examination, and respect. I will be looking for the team that presents the strongest argument overall, based on these criteria.

khasenbeck-meyer@fenwickfriars.com

Hunter Haynes Hire

Mac Healey Regis High School

Sean Healey Regis High School

Sunay Hegde Montville

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 9:18 AM EDT

For Stanford:

Everything in LD paradigm applies to PF. You can spread and I don’t care what you read. Send all speech docs beforre your speech with the cards your reading to my email below, if we have to do some weird calling card stuff I’m prolly gonna doc points bc it just takes way too long. Ideally you don’t paraphrase, won’t hack straight against if you do, but may lower speaks, so just read cut cards.

Email:sunayhegde2017@gmail.com

Hey, I'm sunay (he/him). I did LD at Montville Highschool for 4 years. Got a bid in LD my senior year and a few bid rounds.

It's been like 6 months since I have actively thought about debate. This means that you should probably go like 60-70% of your max speed in rebuttals (I have always been a bad at flowing either way) and always err on the side of over-explanation, especially for more dense debates. There are probably things I have forgot and need time to think about.

Shorter version:

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest):

1 - Policy/theory

2 - K (security, cap, grove)

3 - tricks

4- phil

5 - pomo, performance

Defaults:

Theory - Dtd, C/I, no rvis

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

yes 1ar theory

extinction ows

Will probably better fairly generous with speaks but generally my metric will be to start at a 29 and go up or down depending on strategy etc..

*As a general note, I don't care what you read and will vote on literally anything as long as its not racist, sexist, etc.., but things on the lower side of my pref list mean that I have less experience with them/will have a harder time evaluating more higher levels of those debates and will probably need you to go slower/over explain.

Long Version:

tech > truth

Policy- favorite style of debate and debated this the most. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate as opposed to generic impacts. Impact calc in the back half of the round is super important, 2nr/2ar needs the comparison otherwise my ballot becomes much harder to make. Also don't forget ev comparision since i'm unlikely to do the work there if you do not do it for me.

Theory - Dont care if its friv. Go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text, esp if its analytic, since if u go full speed through like 3 shells good chance im gonna miss stuff. Disclosure good, but if you use it to abuse novices speaks will probably be lower. Good standard comparison and clear abuse stories make these rounds easier to judge.

Tricks - Will vote on anything as long as it has some type of warrant. Won't be too happy with ev after x speech args but like if its conceded and extended with a warrant I'll vote on it. Generally, if you want to read em - delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. Also, reading them on a novice or trad debater will cap your speaks at 28. *Fair note here that just because I will vote for them does not mean I am gonna be the best at evaluating a Nailbomb AC or something of that sort.

Phil - Im not well read on a lot of type of phil. My knowledge on most lit bases is fairly rudimentary, which means for more niche arguments I'm unlikely to know it. I also was on the util side most of the time in these debates, meaning that however hard I try to be tab those biases will probably sway me in close debates. With all that being said, if u wanna read it go ahead, although im probably not the best to evaluate these debates. If you do go for it j make sure to explain it coherently and not just use a bunch of buzz words. This means that you probably shouldn't go max speed when explaining your syllogism and be blippy when extending random blips at the top of fw. I also really find permis/presumption debates to be pretty tedious, so if your nc/ac is just a bunch of permis/presumption triggers im probably also not the guy for you. This also means if skep is your strat im probably not the person to pref.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forget the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords,. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks. Make sure to have turn cases or alt solves stuff in there too. Also pomo makes me confused, so just be sure to explain it, im not gonna be able to vote off weird buzzwords i dont understand no matter how tab i try to be.

K affs/performance - I like K affs that have a clear advocacy that actually does something (non t/performance affs are fine but the threshold for either explanation of what the aff does/justifying the impact turn to T will be much higher). If you have some vague advocacy that is basically non T and super shifty, but act like its T in 1ac cx, I am going to be much more receptive to T args compared to if the aff was just non-T and went hard for the impact turn. This also means the overview to the 1ar should slow down and give a explanation of the affs theory of power, what the aff does, and why I should vote aff. If im left confused as to what the aff actually does by the end of the round, the presumption push the neg is going to make will be much more persuasive. Basically, make sure your ci is not super vague and ridiculously blippy, be ready for the impact turn debate, and give a clear explain as to what the aff does.

There is probably a bunch of stuff im missing just because i dont want this paradigm to be too long, so if you have a specific question just ask it before the round.

Emily Helstrom Waring School

Olya Hines Smy Newton South High School

Jenna Hong Hire

Gabriel Hopkins Shrewsbury

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 3:25 PM EDT

I have been coaching public forum at Shrewsbury High (MA) since 2014, and am now the head coach there. Please note that Shrewsbury PFers have been instructed not to send their cases to their opponents or their judges. They also will not partake in Theory or K debates since they have no place in Public Forum Debate. They will be debating the resolution as is the entire goal of PF debate.

I have a lot of experience judging, but have also been in the tabroom a lot recently. I believe in the values of public forum debate, meaning that the debate should be able to be adjudicated by a citizen judge. I will flow, but I'm looking for clear signposting and a clear structure to each speech. This is just good practice.

I love a good narrative, but not at the expense of solid evidence and impacts.

I want logically sound warrants, please don't just say that my card is from 2023 when theirs is from 2021...I want a real reason for why your evidence is better in relation to your contentions.

Please give me clash and weighable impacts. But please don't just say you outweigh on scope or magnitude without telling me why.

I really don't want to call for evidence, so please don't use false figures or try anything dodgy. This includes things like, "our opponents didn't respond..." when they clearly did respond.

I will not judge based on any plans, counterplans or critical theories. That is simply not in the spirit of public forum debate.

I don't like roadmaps. Your speech should be clear enough for me to follow without one and it's a problem if you need one, and although I'll probably let you give it, I won't be listening to it.

Don't be rude. This includes good etiquette in crossfire. Condescension will make me look for a way to give you the loss.

I do really like cases I haven't heard before. Just be careful though, the reason they're new is that there's usually an issue with them! That's the fun of all this right!?

Sandy Hou Millburn High School

Eric Howe American Heritage Palm Beach HS

Charles Huang TJST Independent

Maxwell Huang Waring School None

Zhensen Huang Sidwell

Ginger Hunsucker RD Independent

David Huston Jasper High School

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:45 AM CDT

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

Jiyoon Im Bergen Debate Club

Rafiqul Islam Hunter College None

Rafael Jacobsen Horace Mann School

Erin Jacques Avenues: The World School

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 8:09 AM EDT

Congratulations for participating in Speech and Debate!

I’m a debate enthusiast, and my leisure time is spent promoting the sport for all students. Whether you win or lose this round, you are developing competencies that will carry you throughout your life. Now for how to win my ballot.

I'm a FLAY (Flow /Laymen) PF judge, so while I flow the round, I expect a respectful and civil atmosphere— and make sure your narrative makes sense. In other words, don’t read a bunch of statistics to support arguments that don’t seem reasonable in the real world.

In my evaluations, I prioritize the following three factors, listed in no particular order:

1) Weighing: clearly explain the arguments made by both sides as early as the second rebuttal and throughout the remainder of the round

2) Warrant: provide logical reasoning behind the evidence presented and critically interrogate your opponents' warrants.

3) Clash/Crossfire: fully engage with and provide quality responses to the arguments made by your opponent, rather than simply disagreeing with them. With that said, don’t stress the crossfire. The crossfire is NOT going to make or break the round. At most, it may impact your speaker points. Thus, it's important to use that time to thoroughly interrogate and understand the opponent's narrative to have a meaningful exchange of ideas for the remainder of the round.

If evenly matched on all the above, perceptual dominance (i.e., tone, presence, confidence, and team dynamic) wins!

Automatic Loss:

Warning: If tempted to give false evidence, Don’t Do It!

Speaker Point deduction:

Icks:

Repeatedly (3 or more) asking opponents for cards. You might as well ask them to send you their entire case- SUS!
Looking only at the judge the entire round without ever looking at your opponent; I find it dismissive and rude to your opponent. It’s important to fluctuate your attention and consider both the judge and your opponent during the round.

Vishal Jain North Attleboro High

Siya Jairath Lumos Debate Institute (MS) None

Alex James Hire None

Kruti Jani DebateDrills

patrick jay Wayland High School

Jonathan Jendrzejewski Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS None

Sharad Jha Garden State

Bo Jiang Omega Speech and Debate

Kati Johnson Bergen Debate Club

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 12:21 PM CDT

For your email chains: jatikohn@gmail.com

Tldr;

NonT & Performance: 1

Kritiks: 1

Phil: 2

LARP: 2-3

Topicality: 2-3

Theory: 3

Hello everyone, I’m Kati (she/they). I am the lead PF coach & curriculum writer for Bergen Debate, and I regularly teach LD at various summer camps (NSD every summer since I graduated high school: 2019, ’20, ’21, ’22 & War Room in 2020). As a debater, I competed primarily in LD, clearing at every nat circ tournament I went to my junior/senior year, reaching the bid round at all but one. I was the first freshman to qualify to TFA State & Nationals at my school, amassing over 60 state points compositely & was top 30 in extemp debate nationally as a fish. Throughout undergrad, I continued coaching LD and Policy, and upon graduation began working in PF. All of this is to say that I’ve been in the activity for a while and really love it, and I very much look forward to judging your round:)

If you have any specific paradigmatic questions for me, feel free to ask before we get started, but I pretty much am a blank slate. What matters to me most is that arguments make sense & I know what I'm voting for and why it matters.

General Prefs:

-Speed is fine/good! But don’t sacrifice your clarity & please don't yell into your mic if we're online.

-Good Extensions clarify warrants. It’s not a real extension if you are just restating the tag; spend time fleshing out why it deserves my ballot.

-Weigh everything, even/especially your weighing! Not referring solely to those mechanisms, you need to be comparing all of the arguments on my flow and telling me what is the most important to vote on & why.

-Overviews are awesome / Final Speeches should be attempting to write my RFD. This means take me through each layer of the debate and tell me how/why you are winning (framework, contentions, link or alt, the RVI, etc.). Go through everything that matters, identifying independent voters for your side.

-Lastly, don’t read radical arguments that you don’t have the agency to. An L 26 is the most likely conclusion of a round like that.

Nathan Johnston Lake Highland Preparatory School

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 4:24 AM EDT

Director of Speech and Debate at Lake Highland Prep - Orlando, FL

Email chain info: njohnston@lhps.org

The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.

I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.

Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind)
Tricks - you should probably strike me

The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.

Jason Jones Brother Rice High School

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2024 at 12:53 PM EDT

There is a resolution to be debated. You must argue it and only it. Your contentions must be clear. Your subpoints must be clear. They ALL must directly tie back to your side (pro/con) of the resolution.

Signposting is a must.

I do not like arrogance and an entitled attitude during debates. There are rules and the rules apply, equally, to everyone. You are not above them and will be docked speaker points for being disrespectful or arrogant. It's really not difficult to be kind.

Linking is a must. You make a claim, you prove it. It's called the burden of proof. Make your links clear, please! So, if you're making claims, you better have the evidence and reasoning/warrants to tie all of it together. Failure to provide clear links is a good way to lose on a particular contention.

If your opponent doesn't respond to a claim you made in their next speech, you win that claim (it's called burden of rejoinder and debaters ignore opposition claims all the time and this will be seen as a drop).

Next: evidence/cards/citations. Please have them prepared and shared with your opposition prior to the start of the debate. I don't like wasting time during a debate while a team takes several minutes to find the source for the card...it often leads to an unfair prep time disadvantage. If you press your opponent's evidence, please make sure that both sides are clear as to what part of the evidence is being called into question.

Framework: if you're going to use one, stick to it and extend it throughout the entire debate. Don't casually reference it; make it the essence of your constructives.

Impact: Make it clear and reference it often. Your impacts tell the judge why he or she should care. Don't just casually say them once and then never have any ties back to it. Make sure to directly link your impacts to your contentions. In close matches where both teams make valid well-presented claims, decisions are ultimately made on the power of the teams' impacts.

Rebuttals: You have to respond to the claims made by your opposition in your very next speech. This is called the burden of rejoinder. If your opponent argues contentions x, y, and z in their first constructive, but you only address contentions x and z in first cross or rebuttal, that's a drop by you and they win on contention y. Don't bring them up later or you will be docked.

Off-time Roadmaps: I find them helpful especially if you speak fast. I will try my best to flow all arguments so anything that helps me do that appreciated. That said, keep them short and don't attempt to squeeze in any off-clock arguments.

Natalie Jones Hire

Sam Jones Hire

Sohail Jouya Poly Prep Country Day School

Last changed on Thu February 15, 2024 at 9:23 AM EDT

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

Jana Joyner Grand Oaks High School

Revin Jun Hire

Sri K Princeton

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington HS

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:31 PM EDT

Sheryl Kaczmarek Lexington High School -- SherylKaz@gmail.com

General Thoughts

I expect debaters to treat one another, their judges and any observers, with respect. If you plan to accuse your opponent(s) of being intellectually dishonest or of cheating, please be prepared to stake the round on that claim. Accusations of that sort are round ending claims for me, one way or the other. I believe debate is an oral and aural experience, which means that while I want to be included on the email chain, I will NOT be reading along with you, and I will not give you credit for arguments I cannot hear/understand, especially if you do not change your speaking after I shout clearer or louder, even in the virtual world. I take the flow very seriously and prior to the pandemic judged a lot, across the disciplines, but I still need ALL debaters to explain their arguments because I don't "know" the tiniest details for every topic in every event. I am pretty open-minded about arguments, but I will NOT vote for arguments that are racist, sexist or in any other way biased against a group based on gender identity, religion or any other characteristic. Additionally, I will NOT vote for suicide/self harm alternatives. None of those are things I can endorse as a long time high school teacher and decent human.

Policy Paradigm

The Resolution -- I would prefer that debaters actually address the resolution, but I do vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often. That is because it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question, in the context of the rest of the round.

Framework -- I often find that these debates get messy fast. Debaters make too many arguments and fail to answer the arguments of the opposition directly. I would prefer more clash, and fewer arguments overall. While I don't think framework arguments are as interesting as some other arguments in debate, I will vote for the team that best promotes their vision of debate, or look at the rest of the arguments in the round through that lens.

Links -- I would really like to know what the affirmative has done to cause the impacts referenced in a Disad, and I think there has to be something the affirmative does (or thinks) which triggers a Kritik. I don't care how big the impact/implication is if the affirmative does not cause it in the first place.

Solvency -- I expect actual solvency advocates for both plans and counterplans. If you are going to have multi-plank plans or counterplans, make sure you have solvency advocates for those combinations of actions, and even if you are advocating a single action, I still expect some source that suggests this action as a solution for the problems you have identified with the Status Quo, or with the Affirmative.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part of the card you read needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards after a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot make enough sense of it to write it down, I will not be able to vote for it. If you don't have the time to explain a complicated argument to me, and to link it to the opposition, you might want to try a different strategy.

Old/Traditional Arguments -- I have been judging long enough that I have a full range of experiences with inherency, case specific disads, theoretical arguments against politics disads and many other arguments from policy debate's past, and I also understand the stock issues and traditional policy-making. If you really want to confuse your opponents, and amuse me, you'll kick it old school as opposed to going post-modern.

LD Paradigm

The Resolution -- The thing that originally attracted me to LD was that debaters actually addressed the whole resolution. These days, that happens far less often in LD than it used to. I like hearing the resolution debated, but I also vote for non-resolutional, non-topical or critical affirmatives fairly often in LD. That is because I believe it is up to the debaters in the round to resolve the issue of whether the affirmative ought to be endorsing the resolution, or not, and I will vote based on which side makes the better arguments on that question.

Framework -- I think LDers are better at framework debates than policy debaters, as a general rule, but I have noticed a trend to lazy framework debates in LD in recent years. How often should debaters recycle Winter and Leighton, for example, before looking for something new? If you want to stake the round on the framework you can, or you can allow it to be the lens through which I will look at the rest of the arguments.

Policy Arguments in LD -- I understand all of the policy arguments that have migrated to LD quite well, and I remember when many of them were first developed in Policy. The biggest mistake LDers make with policy arguments -- Counterplans, Perm Theory, Topicality, Disads, Solvency, etc. -- is making the assumption that your particular interpretation of any of those arguments is the same as mine. Don't do that! If you don't explain something, I have no choice but to default to my understanding of that thing. For example, if you say, "Perm do Both," with no other words, I will interpret that to mean, "let's see if it is possible to do the Aff Plan and the Neg Counterplan at the same time, and if it is, the Counterplan goes away." If you mean something different, you need to tell me. That is true for all judges, but especially true for someone with over 40 years of policy experience. I try to keep what I think out of the round, but absent your thoughts, I have no choice but to use my own.

Evidence -- I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Highlighting random words which would be incoherent if read slowly annoys me and pretending your cards include warrants for the claims you make (when they do not) is more than annoying. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part if the card you read really needs to say extinction will be the result. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

New Arguments/Very Complicated Arguments -- Please do not expect me to do any work for you on arguments I do not understand. I judge based on the flow and if I do not understand what I have written down, or cannot understand enough to write it down, I won't vote for it. If you don't think you have the time to explain some complicated philosophical position to me, and to link it to the opposition, you should try a different strategy.

Traditional Arguments -- I would still be pleased to listen to cases with a Value Premise and a Criterion. I probably prefer traditional arguments to new arguments that are not explained.

Theory -- Theory arguments are not magical, and theory arguments which are not fully explained, as they are being presented, are unlikely to be persuasive, particularly if presented in a paragraph, or three word blips, since there is no way of knowing which ones I won't hear or write down, and no one can write down all of the arguments when each only merits a tiny handful of words. I also don't like theory arguments that are crafted for one particular debate, or theory arguments that lack even a tangential link to debate or the current topic. If it is not an argument that can be used in multiple debates (like topicality, conditionality, etc) then it probably ought not be run in front of me. New 1AR theory is risky, because the NR typically has more than enough time to answer it. I dislike disclosure theory arguments because I can't know what was done or said before a round, and because I don't think I ought to be voting on things that happened before the AC begins. All of that being said, I will vote on theory, even new 1AR theory, or disclosure theory, if a debater WINS that argument, but it does not make me smile.

PF Paradigm

The Resolution -- PFers should debate the resolution. It would be best if the Final Focus on each side attempted to guide me to either endorse or reject the resolution.

Framework -- Frameworks are OK in PF, although not required, but given the time limits, please keep your framework simple and focused, should you use one.

Policy or LD Behaviors/Arguments in PF -- I personally believe each form of debate ought to be its own thing. I DO NOT want you to talk quickly in PF, just because I also judge LD and Policy, and I really don't want to see theory arguments, plans, counterplans or kritiks in PF. I will definitely flow, and will judge the debate based on the flow, but I want PF to be PF. That being said, I will not automatically vote against a team that brings Policy/LD arguments/stylistic approaches into PF. It is still a debate and the opposition needs to answer the arguments that are presented in order to win my ballot, even if they are arguments I don't want to see in PF.

Paraphrasing -- I have a HUGE problem with inaccurate paraphrasing. I expect debaters to be able to IMMEDIATELY access the text of the cards they have paraphrased -- there should be NO NEED for an off time search for the article, or for the exact place in the article where an argument was made. Making a claim based on a 150 page article is NOT paraphrasing -- that is summarizing (and is not allowed). If you can't instantly point to the place your evidence came from, I am virtually certain NOT to consider that evidence in my decision.

Evidence -- If you are using evidence, I expect your evidence to be highlighted consistent with the intent of your authors, and I expect your tags to make claims that you will prove with the parts you read from your evidence. Pretending your cards include warrants (when they do not) is unacceptable. If your tag says "causes extinction," the text of of the part you card you read MUST say extinction will happen. Misrepresenting your evidence is a huge issue for me. More often then not, when I read cards in a round, it is because I fear misrepresentation.

Theory -- This has begun to be a thing in PF in some places, especially with respect to disclosure theory, and I am not a fan. As previously noted, I want PF to be PF. While I do think that PFers can be too secretive (Policy and LD both started that way), I don't think PFers ought to be expending their very limited time in rounds talking about whether they ought to have disclosed their case to their opponents before the round. Like everything else I would prefer were not true, I can see myself voting on theory in PF because I do vote based on the flow, but I'd prefer you debate the case in front of you, instead of inventing new arguments you don't really have time to discuss.

neel kanamangala Hire

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 9:02 AM CDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

For policy -

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

Evidence quality is your best friend in front of me.

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

Read more than 1 argument on case please.

For the kritik -

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

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

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

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

For T/theory -

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

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

I'm very mid for frivolous shells.

Be organized and clear please.

For tricks and phil -

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

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

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

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

For PF -

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

Sticky defense is silly. Extend your arguments.

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

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

Nancy Keating Newton South High School

Sammie Leigh Keenan JR Masterman

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 12:46 PM EDT

sammie keenan (she/her) | skleigh523@gmail.com | 2673249332

JR Masterman EK - PF for 4 years, TOCs twice

add me to the chain

post round me if you believe i genuinely made the wrong decision - I probably won't go about reaching out to tab to change it, but I will appreciate the discussion nonetheless

feel free to reach out if you have any questions or are looking for any support outside of round

*** on feb24 topic - if you avoid the extinction/climate nihilism bit we all have memorized by now, and spare me the boredom and try something fun, i will really appreciate you

if you dont feel like reading the rest of my paradigm/ you aren't looking to see how i feel about prog etc, just read this

I will not read lit on the topics beforehand, so don't treat me like i've been spending as much time thinking about this as you have. i probably don't know those 5 cards that everyone knows and uses, so don't just throw out a name and expect me to get it. if your argument doesn't make sense without me having done extensive research on my own time, it's not worth voting on.

treat me as you would treat a pretty standard tech

don't be racist, homophobic, dont misgender your opponents, do not be belittling, arrogant, or condescending, etc. etc.

Debate whichever way brings you the most joy, have fun

If you have something fun you want to try out, PLEASE do it in a round with me, Ill probably be overjoyed to break away from substance for an hour

i think speaks are pretty stupid - we cant really separate ourselves from our biases so i will usually just give everyone relatively good speaks ill only dock you if youre mean/harmful

Im anti-intervention which means i will vote strictly off of the flow (or as strictly as i can). please do not ask me to fill in the holes for you, weigh for you, etc - i wont. If its not on my flow Im not voting for it.

If its not fleshed out in speech, I wont vote for it, dont just extend a tagline and expect that to be substantive enough to vote on.

DO NOT just extend a card name without

a) extending what that card says

b) extending a warrant with it

telling me "extend x its the most important & holistic ev in the round" isn't enough for me to vote off of and will not win you the round

Please do a preflow before you enter the room

Please do not give me a 40s preamble before you start time

i dont listen to cross unless you say something funny enough to distract me from tetris, and id prefer we skip grand and take a min of prep

PLEASE MAKE THE LAZIEST POSSIBLE CHOICE - i vote on whatever is the cleanest - as long as its been consistently substantiated idc what it is ill vote on it if its clean

some substance stuff:

good extensions or i wont vote for you - big on continuity through speeches - this means you don't win my ballot if i dont get uq,links,impact through every speech i dont vote for it.

WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH - I love weighing and especially in messy rounds (which are most atp) it makes my job much easier and you way more likely to win my ballot. make it fun - metaweigh, go for a prereq, link weigh, idc just please weigh

defense is not sticky

signpost, roadmap - if you tell me where to look, i can look there, but if rounds get messy and you are jumping all over the place with no warning, i will get lost and i will stop flowing and it will lose you the round

i like when ppl go for turns but if it was a blippy turn to begin with and you blow it up it in the backhalf (esp if ur second) prob wont vote on it

probability weighing isnt an excuse to make new responses in the backhalf

prog stuff:

ks - I like them and Ill vote off them. Have a ROB, I like alts, idc if theyre reject x or an actual separate alt. im familiar with a solid amount of k lit but if its super niche please take the time to make sure that both i understand and your opponents understand. if you really believe in your lit you dont just see it as a path to the ballot, you want to have good discourse on it. if i can tell that you yourself don't even know your lit and you are picking a niche k to get my ballot... yeah ill vote for you if you win it, but ill vote for you very begrudgingly and ill probably get very annoyed at you during my rfd.

theory - I dont like friv theory. I also don't love evaluating theory and don't see the value in a lot of shells. i personally believe in disclo, but its not a huge deal to me. on top of that, i dont totally care about certain specific norms within disclo, so if youre getting super picky and starting an argument with the opponents over which "type" of disclo, im probably going to feel that all of our time has been wasted. That being said, If you win your shell I vote on it and if you think someone made a serious and harmful violation, run a shell ill vote on it.

tricks - first caveat for my anti-interventionism

framing - loveee framing. do not, however, love perfcons so pick a narrative. also, if you are running SV framing please make sure it is actually SV and not a util arg where you tell me at the bottom that it affects a certain marginalized group worse than everyone else experiencing the issue. every util arg is exacerbated by SV. if you label it as SV, make sure its SV.

*respond in 2nd constructive - second caveat for my anti-interventionsim.

*be strategic w framing, notabusive

*note about prog - if you are a small school, haven't been to camp, etc. and you don't "know" how to respond to prog yet, i get it. but not knowing how to respond is not a response. there is

a) a reason people are running prog arguments apart from putting you in a position where you struggle to respond.

b) a reason you are here - to THINK CRITICALLY - responding to prog is really no different than responding to any given argument, please just use your brain and think critically about the argument at hand. i dont need a line-by-line response including indicts about the lit, just try your best and make an actual response.

other specifics:

norms -

cut your cards and have them ready immediately

content warnings should have opt-outs

i like speech docs - if you can send docs for every speech thats cool but if not that's chill as well

be nice to your opponents

please be cautious about your evidence ethics - on this note, if you have a problem with someone elses evidence ethics PLEASE officially challenge it as soon as you notice it DO NOT wait until round over, im not gonna evaluate it, sorry

dont do egregious prep theft

please don't spam shells. i dont care if its your strategy to win against a team that doesnt even know how to access the wiki or if you genuinely believe there are that many shells to run in the context of this round - its never a good strategy. in the same way that i dont want to see 3 contentions and 2 turns extended in FF, i dont wanted to see a ridiculous amount of shells that by the end of round have become so muddled that not one of us understands.

on the above note - pick an advocacy. yeah, maybe you care about a lot of things and want to advocate for all of them but remember that this is public forum. pf was not built to be conducive for prog, even generally, so please limit the number of prog args per round to at least attempt to make use of the limited space provided.

as mentioned in the prog details, i like disclo as a norm, and i will vote on it if you give me a reason to.

idrc about para unless youre quite literally lying - if you think your opponent did something crazy then run a shell. alternatively, just say hey they egregiously paraphrased, thats not what their ev says, no warrant blah blah blah and i probably just wont vote on the argument and you'll save a bunch of time instead of running the shell! ill be appreciative if you can just win on the substance. also, i personally dont think a little paraphrasing is bad for the debate space but if you win your shell ill vote on it, I just personally feel para shells are a waste of time in pf

speed - i can handle speed but if you are exceeding 300wpm please send a speech doc. if youre gonna spread please make sure you can actually spread. even if you can spread, i will say, i just simply dont enjoy it. also, if i cant understand you I might yell clear or i might just stop flowing.

docs - ill appreciate if you can send me a doc for every speech, and ill really appreciate if the reason you send it is not because you are speaking at a ridiculous pace. this being said, docs are by no means necessary and if you are not a team who is afforded massive files which you can quickly put into a doc for me speech by speech, understood.

Stephanie Kelly-Esquivel Belen Jesuit Prep

Georgina Kenchington Success Academy Harlem North Central

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:38 AM EDT

Hi! If you’re reading this, it’s probably because I’m judging you. Here’s some information on my background:

Email: georgina.kenchington@SASchools.org

Georgetown University: B.S. International Politics, Concentration in Security Studies (2014-2018)

Public Forum Debate Coach @ Success Academy Harlem North Central (8/23-Present)

I started competing in Model United Nations (MUN) at the Marymount School of New York until I graduated in 2014. I continued to compete extensively and judge (chair) committees through my time at Georgetown University until I graduated until 2018. I served as Conferences Coordinator for Georgetown’s collegiate travel team my senior year, and also served on conference secretariats throughout my time at university, helping to organize and coordinate high school and collegiate level conferences. This is my first year judging public forum debate tournaments, and I’m excited to get started!

I have strong background in and knowledge of current events and international affairs/policies from my previous Model UN experience and collegiate area of study. I will note that my previous experience of theory/philosophy is limited.

Here’s the criteria I will use to adjudicate your round:

Create a legitimate clash. Please show me the contrast between your world and your opponent’s world. Make the distinction obvious to me.
A bit of aggression is fine in debate, but I will not tolerate disrespect and arguments that go against basic human rights and dignity.
I will increase speaker points for clarity, confidence, articulation, and poise - show me that you know what you’re talking about and say it with conviction.
I’m looking for a clear definition of the central issue, and understanding the exact reasons you think I should vote for you.
Make sure you engage with the resolution at hand — connect cases back to the topic clearly, and don’t waste time debating definitions of the words in the resolution.
Organization matters to me, and I appreciate a strong framework for your arguments. I will add speaker points for clear roadmapping.
I’m looking for a strongly orated round from the winner, keeping your speed at a medium.
I’m looking for analytics and the more educational team.

Good luck and I hope you enjoy this debate!

Cam Kettles Hire

Rafeh Khan Lake Highland Preparatory School

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 7:33 AM EDT

Pine View KP; NSD Instructor; Lake Highland Prep Coach

Tabula Rasa

The funnier you make the round, the better it will go for you

TLDR

Tech>truth. Weigh, give me good warranting, and DO NOT SPREAD(honestly i prefer if you heir on the side of slower; if your opponents can’t understand you I probably cannot either). Defense is sticky but I only grant you marginal defense(if the ; first FF may read some type of new weighing (NOT elaborate weighing… no overviews, prereq analysis, etc.). Extend your arguments with card names, warrants, links, and impacts in the back half. Weigh links and turns, defense, and pretty much everything else. Please read the evidence section of my paradigm and abide by those rules, they will be enforced.

DEBATE IS A GAME, PLAY TO WIN.

I will vote for pretty much any argument as long as it's warranted well.

Signposting:

This is essential; do it.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense/DAs as you want, just please implicate them on the line-by-line and weigh them. Second rebuttal MUST frontline terminal defense and turns, probably some defense too

Summary:

First summary only needs to extend turns but should also extend terminal defense if you have time. Defense is sticky, however, I’d prefer for the second summary to extend as much defense as possible. The only new turns or defense I’ll evaluate in summary are as responsive to new implications made by the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can make new implications on weighing but not brand new weighing or new implications of turns, or anything else UNLESS responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down, treat me like a flay judge in these speeches and my decision becomes a lot easier.

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round. I can also disclose speaks if you ask.

Evidence:

Add me to email chain Rafehk21@gmail.com; I prefer if you send a speech doc beforehand with all evidence unless it's analytics

Speed:

Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically; don't go for everything. If you spread (250+ wpm) there is no way you get above 27 speaks. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast or not clear and I drop you it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Time:

You are not a baby, time yourself

Postrounding:

Postround as hard as you want, I think it's educational.

––––––PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

Theory:

I enjoy theory debate (ONLY IF NOT ABUSIVE). Yes, I think paraphrasing is bad and disclosure is good. No, I will not hack for either of these shells. I think abuse in rounds is bad but if you read other shells it may not go well for you. I EVALUATE THEORY MUCH DIFFERENT THAN OTHER TECH JUDGES (model of debate > than a small random squirrlley turn)

Kritiks: I read a couple K's in my time but I am extremely bad at evaluating them SO if you run one, please WIN the argument sufficiently. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY WITH A MEGAMIND BRAIN.

Tricks: These genuinely create a stupid model of debate but go for them if you want to.

TKO:If your opponent has no path to the ballot (conceded theory shell or them reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves) invoke a TKO and you win with 30 speaks, if they did have a path to the ballot you lose with 21s.

Joe Khuu Hunter College

Sol Kim Phillips Academy Andover

Jay Koh Hunter College

Lynn Kong CR North High School

Joseph Kraus Portsmouth High School

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 9:38 AM EDT

Put forth well structured argument that outlines your points in clear contentions. Designate these contentions. Do not talk too fast. Your extra information means nothing if it is lost in a machine gun of words. Be expressive in your tone. If something is particularly important, make sure your inflection denotes this. Be passionate, but not exasperated. Remember that there are three modes of persuasion, ethos, pathos, logos. Almost all debaters bring good logos, most bring good ethos(see below), but few bring sufficient pathos. Can you get at the emotion of the issue beyond simply using a passionate tone? Bring humanity to the issue by connecting it to a specific anecdote or example. This will show you care about your topic and are showing me how it genuinely affects an individual, not just numbers. Stats are important, but numbers can blend together and be forgotten soon after they are said. A story rarely is.

Maintain courtesy in your cross and your exchanges with the opponent. Do not commit ad hominem. Do not interrupt your opponent's answer during cross. Unless he or she is being unnecessarily wordy and using up the time, let the person finish. If you have to interrupt them, do so respectfully. If you don't want a person to eat up your time, then don't ask an open ended question that allows him/her to do so. Professionalism and respect are essential to effectively winning an argument. Why would I believe what you have to say if you can't even believe in your own argument enough to let the other side say theirs?

Avoid using the word 'like' as a filler during speeches. This is a bad habit and can erode your authority as a speaker. Don't try to impress me with debate jargon. This can bog down the flow of your argument and can get away from the humanity of the issue. Public forum debate or World School debate are both supposed to appeal to any person. Excessive use of debate jargon goes against that intent.

I can recognize when you are reasserting your argument and refuting theirs within the speech when you say. 'We say..." or "They say..." or something to that effect.

Ella Kronman Hunter College

Stephen Kwon MagnetIQ

Rasmee Ky Hire

William LaMoure Regis High School

Chloe Langston Grand Oaks High School None

Brookelyn Leblanc St. Luke's School

Angela Lee Temple City High School None

Joon Lee Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Sean Lee Horace Mann School

David Levin St. Luke's School

Last changed on Mon May 13, 2024 at 9:24 AM EDT

David Levin (he/him/his)

Head Coach for St. Luke's School, New Canaan, CT

Email Chain: levind@stlukesct.org

All Formats

be decent to one another (this includes your partner). don't use oppressive rhetoric. put me on the email chain.

Paradigms for PF, PD, and LD below.

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

Public Forum

>100 rounds judged in 2022-23. run what you want. cut cards. i'm a good judge for Kritiks. i'm a pretty good judge for theory. this format has so much potential for innovation - don't be afraid to try something different/new.

General:

"Progressive debate" debate doesn't mean much to me. I love to evaluate kritik and framework debates. I like evaluating purposeful T and theory rounds (I'd especially like to see more fiat debates). I also like judging a good salt-of-the-earth "substance" round. I don't enjoy evaluating what you might call "tricks", but I'll judge them fairly. I'm not here to tell you what you can't run (outside of oppressive/exclusionary arguments). It's good to interrogate the normative expectations of PF debate, and to have discussions of what forms of exclusion undergird debate, and specifically this format, to begin with. I likethis article from Stefan Bauschard a lot.

Housekeeping:

Please pre-flow and create the email chain before the round. Include me on the email chain. Make sure your opponents and I get the card doc (if applicable) prior to starting your speech. Card docs should cut full paragraphs, and include highlighting (see "Evidence"). If you have a shell (T, theory, etc), please send it in the card doc. Let's work together to trim down the time spent on evidence exchanges.

DO NOT send a "locked" document to me or your opponents. This is a competitive equity AND academic integrity concern.

Sit or stand for your speeches. Share the tabletote if only one team has one.

Speaking:

Speed/spreading is fine with some exceptions. Arguments presented in shell form (T, theory, etc) should be read more deliberately than case, otherwise I may miss an important warrant.

If you have an auditory processing concern, please address it with your opponents rather than me whenever possible. If someone comes to you with an auditory processing concern, accommodate them. Be good to each other.

How I flow:

I flow digitally, and divide my flow by contentions. For contentions with multiple subpoints, just make sure you sign post. I flow warrants and read card docs during crossfire and prep, so don't just extend your author/tag.

I don't judge-extend or judge-kick whenever possible (maybe once in a while in a novice round).

I flow overviews at the top of the first contention. I'd rather flow weighing on the contentions individually, rather than en-masse at the bottom of the speech.

How I evaluate:

A-priori arguments are, as the name implies, evaluated first. Absent an a-priori debate, I go to framing.

Framing should be complementary to your impact/weighing. If framing is not argued, or if both teams drop framing, I default to utilitarianism. Once the framework debate is resolved (if there is one), I move to the contentions.

I like comparative link weighing a lot. Speculative impacts require a bit more work on uniqueness than empiric impacts. I think the status quo can be an impact in itself.

If neither team is able to garner offense, presumption defaults to the side of the resolution which most resembles the status quo. Presumption can be flipped if the status quo is the impact.

Crossfire is binding.

Speaker Points:

I average around a 28.7 for varsity rounds. For a well-executed technical debate, expect something in the 28.8-29.4 realm. Above a 29.5 is reserved for performances that "stick to the ribs", demonstrating both technical mastery and rhetorical salience. Remember that debate is largely a practice in storytelling.

Specific Arguments

Topical "normative" Cases:

Truth is determined by the flow, and I don't judge-extend or kick arguments. Otherwise, do what you do. Turns rock.

Topical "critical" Cases:

Win your framework and role of the ballot. "Role of the judge" feels redundant, but if you make a distinction between my role and my ballot's role, I'll listen.

Again, links and solvency usually the most vulnerable components of the case. K solvency shouldn't be restricted to discourse - but what does the fiat-ed adoption of the critical worldview look like?

Textual alts that suggest specific actions get a little too close to plans/counterplans for comfort - instead, "vote [your side] to endorse/reject [something]", then go win the link.

These rounds are where I can offer my most helpful feedback, whether you're running a K or debating against one.

Non-topical criticisms:

Win your framework. Explain why the criticism is a prerequisite to topical debate, answer the TVA/TVN, and the perm.

Remember that I default presume to the side of the ballot closest to the status quo, whether you're reading a Non-T K or debating against one.

Presumption can be flipped either way. If you do a performance or narrative of some sort, implicate that stylistic choice.

"Off-case" Criticisms:

I'm not quite as fond of these for time constraint reasons (they often result in messy back-halves), so if you read one, do so in 2nd constructive or first rebuttal.

If you're critiquing a specific problematic discourse your opponent advances, consider running it as a short theory shell instead (example: I don't need you to spend 120 seconds dissecting gendered structures of power to claim misgendering is bad - it's pretty straightforward).

Topicality:

I prefer T be read in shell form with an interpretation, violation, standards and voter(s).

I believe that fairness is an internal link to various more objective impacts, rather than an impact itself. If you go for "drop the team" on T, it should be the whole FF.

T against kritiks should center standards for why I should hold the line for the resolution.

Theory:

Strong theory debates should focus on defining best practices for the activity.

"Theory bad" arguments are inherently theory arguments themselves and I'll evaluate them the same way I evaluate other forms of theory.

I prefer competing interpretations, but if the theory is clearly infinitely regressive or needlessly punitive, my threshold for reasonability lowers. This is especially true for theory "tricks".

Disclosure is good; Open-source disclosure is the gold standard; from my experience and observation, disclosure serves to benefit small programs and under-resourced programs; community minimums for disclosure are debatable. Paraphrasing, rather than reading actual evidence, is unethical.

Evidence:

Cut cards are an ethical standard for debate and non-negotiable at the varsity circuit level. Paraphrasing is not an automatic loss, but I will have no basis to trust your analytics absent you producing a marked copy of your evidence.

I have a low threshold for voting for paraphrasing theory against you, absent a performative contradiction from the other team.

Novices should learn to cut cards, but for them this a goal, not an expectation.

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

Policy:

I'm a little rusty, but regularly judged policy between 2016 and 2020. K v. K and K v. FW/T rounds were my favorites.

Hello again! It's been a minute! If you have me in a policy round, my most important request is that you help me flow you. I can normally follow at decently quick speeds, but if I "clear" you, it's a request for you to help me catch what you're saying. Sign posting is important and please please read tags and shells more slowly than your internals.

I debated policy in HS and coached/judged for a few years before moving to more PF. That said, policy directly informed the way I coach and evaluate PF. I don't have particularly strong opinions about most arguments, so run what you're good at running. I understand that this is quite vague, so if you're unsure how you'll pref me, or what to run in front of me, just ask.

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

Lincoln-Douglas:

Run what you want, but understand that I don't know the norms as well here.

You can likely infer my judging style from the PF and Policy sections above. Any questions, just send an email.

kathy li Ivy Bridge Academy

Renee Li Hire

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!

Karen Lichtenberger West Boca Raton HS None

Alexander Lin Newton South High School

Joanna Lin Boston Latin Middle School

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 7:50 AM EDT

Hi, my name is Joanna Lin (she/her), and I have four years of PF experience. I'm super excited to watch your round!

A few things to know about my judging style:

I will not tolerate any behavior that is sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or disrespectful to anyone in any way. You will lose my respect and a bunch of speaks, and be dropped from the round immediately.

DO SIGNPOST AND DO NOT SPREAD. I do not appreciate card-dumping. You need to show analysis and application of your arguments. You need to show me how your evidence contributes to the claim that you are making. If you impact out to something large, please make sure you have concrete links backing it up. Even if you have the most “truthful” argument, if you are not able to show me how exactly your evidence and warrants back it up — and you card dump — I will be less likely to vote for you. The same goes vice-versa.

WEIGH, and COLLAPSE! At the end of the day, if your words do not coordinate to an impact statement and an explanation or comparison about how your impacts outweigh your opps, your argument does not hold water to me. I will be voting off the flow.

I do not appreciate misrepresentations of data. Please contextualize your numbers in relative/comparative terms.

Assume I do not know anything about this topic. Debate is meant to be accessible to a general audience: you are building your speaking skills so that the common person can understand you! Therefore, please integrate any definitions of jargon and clearly explain esoteric ideas in your speeches.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at jzhuanglin@gmail.com.

———

BONUS!

Opportunities for +0.5 speaks, not compounding:

During a speech of yours:

Saying "rizz" or "grahh" in a smooth, well-integrated way
Using a pun
Using a British accent
Holding your computer upside down

Not during your speech:

Lip-biting or doing (m) th(e) ja(w)line thing
Doing a Fortnite dance
Rapping at least 30 seconds of a UK drill song
Doing a breakdance move

Not for points, but if you give me food, you will have a piece of my love.

At the end of the day, we are all just learning how to be better communicators. So, have fun — and best of luck!

Oliver Lin Hire

Stephanie Lin Hire

Yongshun Lin Richard Montgomery High School

Catherine Liu Hire

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 11:21 AM CDT

catherinxliu@gmail.com

Sioux Falls Washington ‘21, Harvard ‘25

Experience: I did LD for 4 years. I now do a lot of APDA/BP. I mostly did traditional debate but am generally familiar with/did some circuit. I was a 2021 NSDA finalist in LD.

update for Harvard:

I do not know any topic-specific jargon. It’s in your best interest to explain things very clearly, no matter what position you run.

Here are my general thoughts about debate. Feel free to ask me other questions before the round starts.

Tech > truth
I am fine with evaluating most things, and you should run what you're most comfortable with. I would prefer if the aff is at least vaguely in the direction of the topic—what this looks like is up to you. Realistically, I am probably better at evaluating policy positions and stock Ks/phil than I am at evaluating theory or other Ks/phil, but I also think debaters who are good at explaining how things interact with the round will win anyways.
Reasonable speed is okay, but my ability to understand spreading is really not very high now, and I will not flow off the doc. Slow down especially on tags and analytics.
You need to extend the whole argument (warrant + impact).
I usually find that the 2a/n is more effective when you collapse on fewer things that are well weighed instead of many things. If you don't weigh your arguments, I will have to do it for you, and you may be upset by what I think matters most.
Most theory is fine, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses. Interpret this how you will.

I will not evaluate tricks.

Please compare link strength, especially in util v. util debates :(. If aff reads "US presence causes terror through anti-Western sentiment" and neg reads "actually US counterterrorism efforts decrease terror" and then both of you keep extending these arguments past each other without any further comparison, I have no idea how to evaluate the clash and will not vote on it, even if the impact itself is well weighed.
I like clear judge instruction.

Ethan Liu Bergen County Academies

Lisong Liu Newton South High School

Terry Lorber Waring School

Eliza Loring Waring School

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 7:20 AM EDT

My name is Eliza Loring (she/her), and I am a senior at the Waring School in Beverly. I am in Varsity PF. So I come into the round with a guarantee I've done research on the topic and an understanding of the in and outs of Public Forum Debate.

> If you are offensive in any way, even if it's a "joke." I will report you to tabroom and you will lose the round.

> Respect Public Forum in it's essence. What I mean by this is that PF is supposed to be accessible and should be understood by any person from off the street. Therefore if you spread (talking so fast that your words blend together), I will try my best to evaluate your arguments but just know you've lost some of my respect (and speaker points). Additionally, don't overuse debate jargon, because you are actively making debate less accessible.

> Please signpost, I'm begging you. What I mean is that tell me what you are saying. If you are responding to a contention please tell me that so I can flow it.

> In terms of tech over truth. I've begun to evaluate tech more. However I think debate should be a balance of both evidence and rhetoric not one or the other.

> Refrain from running Theory of Kritiks. I will listen to them but just know I very much dislike them. I think they are a cop-out for actually debating the resolved and I will think less of you. If you love Theory or K you should join Policy or Big Questions, because that's not what PF is about (PF actually emerged as a response to this!).

> Evidence ethics are important. Don't make up information, you should always have evidence.

>Don't mansplain and let your opponent answer in cross please. This is one of my biggest pet peeves. When someone asks a question in cross and then proceeds to answer it themselves rather than letting the opponent actually answer. Just be respectful and kind, it's not too much to ask.

If you have any questions about my paradigm or about the results of the round please ask me.

Add me to evidence exchanges: elizal@waringschool.org

Have fun!

Ryan Love Dripping Springs High School

Last changed on Mon March 11, 2024 at 8:36 AM EDT

Assistant Debate Coach Dripping Springs High School

2a/1n UH debate 2016-19

email chain- ryanwaynelove@gmail.com

I do not watch the news.

Novices:

I have infinite patience with novices. So just do your best to learn, and have fun; welcome to debate!

Unrelated:

Hegel updates just dropped: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/manuscript-treasure-trove-may-offer-fresh-understanding-of-hegel

Policy: TFA State Update: (Ask me questions! This is an important tournament, I really do not like how hostile some judges can be to debaters. Y'all deserve to be able to ask whatever you want before the round).

Really important: You have got to slow down a bit for me. If you are not clear, you are doing yourself a disservice. The clearer you are, the faster you can go in front of me. The less clear you are means the more you should slow down.

You do you. But please crystallize the debate. I am infinitely more comfortable voting on well explained, well warranted, argument(s) that were explained persuasively, that took up the vast majority of the time in the 2nr/2ar, than I am on voting on a blippy technically conceded argument that was 20 seconds of the 2nr/2ar. This means I prefer deep debates over crucial issues of clash much more than debates where both sides are trying to spread the opponents thin. In debates where debaters take the latter approach rather than the former, I often times find myself seeking to determine the core "truthiness" of an argument. I often times have a different interpretation of "truth" than others. This means that in debates where little weighing is done for me you may not like how I intervene to make a decision. Similarly, if there is a conceded argument I much prefer you explain why that concession matters in the context of the greater debate being had, instead of just saying "this was conceded so vote for it." Most important to me is how you frame the round. If structural violence outweighs make it clear. If ontology is a pre-requisite to topical discussion make it clear, and so on. I do not want to adjudicate a round where both sides "pass each other like two ships in the night." Weigh your arguments, compare evidence, indict the ideas and arguments your opponents put forth.

Many times in conversations with debaters after the round I will be asked "Well what about this argument?" The debater will then go on to give an awesome, nuanced, explanation of that argument. I will then say "If it had been explained like that in rebuttal, I probably would have voted for it." If you expect me to vote on something, make it important in the last rebuttal.

I have not judged much on this topic. So start slower and work your way up to full speed. If I cannot understand you I will say clear.

Slow down in rebuttals. If you are going blazing fast I will miss something and I will not do the work for you on the flow. If you are fast and clear you should be fine. I need a clear impact scenario in the 2nr/2ar. Tell me the story of your impact(s); whether it be nuclear war, limits/ground, education, or settler violence. Be sure to weigh it in comparison with the impact scenario(s) of your opponents. In short, do the work for me, do not make me intervene to reach a decision.

Argument specific stuff:

Topicality-I am not aware of topical norms, so do not be afraid to go for topicality; especially against super vague plan texts.

Kritiks-I am most comfortable judging kritikal debate. As a debater I debated the kritik explicitly. I say this because I think y'all deserve to know that the finer techne of policy throw-downs are not my strong suit. If you read the Kritik I likely have at least some passing familiarity with your arguments. That does not mean I will hack for you. I expect you to explain any argument to me that you expect me to vote on in a clear and intelligible way. If I can not explain to a team why they lost, I will not vote for an argument.

K Aff v. Framework- I am about 50/50 regarding my voting record. Something, something, the duality of being ya know?

Disads- These are fun. The more internal links to get to the impact the more suss I think the arg is, the more likely I am to believe there is very low risk.

Counterplans-If your strat is to read 900 counterplans that do not really compete I am not the judge for you. Counterplans that have a legit net benefit on the other hand...those are nice. That being said, I have a soft spot for words PICS/PIKS.

Misc- Debate is a game. So if your A-strat is to go for that heg advantage, federalism and 50 states, or cap good, then go for it. You do you. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Please use cross-x effectively

Please act like you want to be here.

Please be efficient in setting up the email chain, sharing docs, et cetera.

Please know I am only human. I will work hard. But know I am not perfect.

Last but not least, have fun! Debate is a great place to express yourself and talk about really interesting and pertinent things; enjoy your time in debate because it is quite fleeting!

LD:

This is the event I am least familiar with of all of the ones I have on this page. I would say look at my Policy paradigm and know that I am very comfortable with any policy-esque arguments. What the cool kids call LARP in LD I am told. For anything else judge instruction and weighing of args is going to be critical. As I have also stated in my policy paradigm I am more familiar with Kritikal args than policy ones, but I think for LD I am a good judge to have if you want to read a plan or something.

That being said I do appreciate debaters using their framing IE Value/standard/whatever to help me adjudicate the round. If you win framing you will probably win the debate when I am in the back of the room, as long as you have an impact as to why your framing matters.

Frivolous theory, RVI's, and tricks are going to be a hard sell for me. Legit theory abuse, topicality, or "T-you gotta defend the topic on the aff" are args I am more than willing to vote on.

Phil arguments are cool but do not assume I have any familiarity with your author. If I do not understand something I ain't voting on it.

San Antonio specifics

Unless both parties agree I do not want to see any spreading.

Do not be afraid to be a traditional debater in front of me. Just be sure you can debate against other styles.

Public Forum

Update a la Churchill on the Kritik- I am down like Charlie Brown for the kritik in PF (understatement). However, if you introduce the K in rebuttal I will be willing to evaluate theory args in response.

TLDR: Tech>truth, I keep a rigorous flow, I appreciate good analytics, and I hate theory in PF. I do not care if you sit or stand. If you want to call for a card go for it; BUT PLEASE do this efficiently. Do not try to spread, but going quick is fine.

Long version: I have judged a lot of rounds in Public Forum this year. There are a few things that you need to know to win my ballot:

The teams who have routinely gotten my ballot have done a great job collapsing the debate down to a few key points. After this, they have compared specific warrants, evidence, and analytics and explained why their arguments are better, why their opponents arguments are worse, and why their arguments being better means they win the debate. This may sound easy, however, it is not. Trust your instincts, debate fearlessly, take chances, and do not worry about whatever facial expression I have. I promise you do not have any idea where my thoughts are.

Crossfires: Use this time wisely. Use it to clarify, use it to create ethos, use it to get concessions, use it to make their arguments look bad and yours good. But use it. I think answers given in crossfire are binding in the debate. If you get a big concession use it in your speeches.

Framework(s): I like these debates. Reading a framework IE structural violence or explaining via an observation how the debate should be framed is helpful because it clarifies for me how to evaluate the debate. I like this in debates, it makes things easier for me. If you are reading a framework be sure to extend it in every speech and use it as a lens to explain your impacts in the debate/weigh your impacts against your opponents.

Speed: I think PF should be more accessible to the general public than policy. With that being said I have not seen a team go too fast yet.

Theory: This is silly. Disclosure theory is silly. Do not read it in front of me. Do not read any theory arguments in front of me. I will not vote on them. With that being said arguing that your opponents are not fitting within the bounds of the resolution is a good argument to make if it applies. If you make this argument and have warrants and impacts do not be afraid to go for it in final focus.

Non-traditional stuff: I enjoy creative takes on the topic, unique cases, and smart argumentation. I do think that PF should always revolve around the topic, I also think the topic is broader than most do. That being said avoid jargon. You can make a lot of creative arguments in this event, do so while avoiding weird debate jargon. No this does not contradict the "theory" section above. I will weigh claims about someone not fitting within the bounds of the resolution vs explanations about why a team is satisfying the burden of the resolution. Whoever does the better debating will win this question in the debate.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. I will flow what you say and weigh it in comparison with what your opponent says. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Congress:

I was a finalist at the TOC in this event. This means I am looking for a lot of specific things to rank high on my ballot.

Clash over everything. If you rehash I am not ranking you.

Authors/sponsors: get into the specifics of the Bill: funding, implementation, agent of action, date of implementation. I appreciate a good authorship/sponsorship speech.

1st neg: Lay out the big neg args, also clash the author/sponsor.

Everyone else needs to clash, clash, clash. Specifically reference the Rep's you are refuting, and refute their specific arguments.

Leave debate jargon for other events.

Ask lots of questions. Good questions. No easy questions to help your side out.

This is as much a speaking event as it is a debate event. Do not over-read on your legal pad (do not use anything else to speak off of), fluency breaks/over gesturing/swaying are distracting, and be sure to use intros, transitions, and conclusions effectively.

I loath breaking cycle. If it happens those speaking on whatever side there are speeches on need to crystallize, clash, or make new arguments.

I appreciate decorum, role-playing as congress-people, and politicking.

1 good speech is better than 100 bad ones.

Wear a suit and tie/ power suit. Do not say "at the leisure of everyone above me" that's weird. My criticisms may seem harsh. I promise they are not intended to be mean. I just want to make you better.

Presiding Officer: To rank in my top 3 you need to be perfect. That being said as long as you do not catastrophically mess up precedence or something like that I will rank you top 8 (usually). The less I notice your presence in the round the better.

BOOMER thoughts (WIP):

Outside of policy/LD I think you should dress professionally.

In cross-x you should be looking at the judge not at your opponents. You are trying to convince the judge to vote for you not your opponents.

At the conclusion of a debate you should shake hands with your opponents and say good debate. If you are worried about COVID you can at least say good debate.

You should have your cases/blocks saved to your desktop in case the WIFI is bad. You should also have a flash drive just in case we have to go back to the stone age of debate.

"Is anyone not ready?" is not epic.

"Is everyone ready?" is epic.

The phrases "taking running prep" or "taking 'insert x seconds of prep'" should not exist.

"Taking prep" is all you need.

"Starting on my first word" umm duh that's when the speech starts. Just start after asking if everyone is ready.

Christopher Lozano Early Scholars

Andrew Lu Hire

Wenping Lu Long Wings Education

Amanda Lydon Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS

Nan Ma Ivy Bridge Academy

Last changed on Fri May 3, 2024 at 6:50 PM EDT

Hello debaters, this is my paradigm. I suggest reading through all of it, but the TLDR is at the bottom.

In my paradigm I'll be answering a few common questions:

- Are you OK with spreading?

I'm not OK with spreading, so if you decide to spread, please send me your speech doc so I can read you case more thoroughly.

- Truth>Tech

Actually, I prefer Tech>Truth, and I prefer strategic arguments and carded responses. Analytics are fine, I would prefer carded responses more, as they are easier for me flow and evaluate.

- Do you allow for my camera to be off? (ONLY APPLIES TO ONLINE COMPETITIONS)

Strictly no, I don't trust turned off cameras just in case it isn't you actually debating. It is fine if you turn off your camera if you're not speaking, but when you're speaking please remember to turn it on, or else I will remind you.

- Is it OK if me and my partner talk during my opp's speech? (ONLY APPLIES TO IN-PERSON COMPETITIONS)

It's fine if it's a soft whisper that I can ignore. If you're laughing or talking loudly, no matter if you are friends with your opponents, it'll be an automatic speaker point deduction, as it's taken as rude offence by both the judge and the opp's.

- How would I get a 26 or 30 for speaker points?

If I hear someone use derogatory or racial language, it's an automatic 26 for both that person and their partner. To get a perfect 30, speak concise, and I would prefer if you spoke in the middle, so don't speak too slow, as you can't get out all the information, but don't speak so fast that I can't understand what your saying. Additionally, I know that crossfire isn't really important to most judges, but I care about crossfire. It can show me how much you understand the topic (and what you're saying). Don't be too aggressive though, try to calmly answer the questions but if your opponent keeps on mistaking/misunderstanding you question or fails to respond to it correctly, I will be sure to note that down. I definitely take off points though if you bring up new evidence in summary, grand cross, or final focus.

TLDR: In short terms I am a tech leaning flay judge. Speak concisely and clear, no stuttering or stumbling, and please no making up evidence. That just makes the job of me and your opponent harder. No bringing up new evidence after second cross. That's basically it. Further details in my actual paradigm.

Where I am

<-Lay----------Flay---↑------Tech->

Remember debaters, your score doesn't define how well of a debater you are. It only defines how well you did in that specific round. If you get a slightly lower score than your opponents or partner, don't feel discouraged because it's just once and you have many more rounds and debates to go. So no matter if you take the L in the round, remember that you all are great debaters, and keep pursuing your passion in debate! (Unless you're forced by your parents to do debate).

Victor Ma Westfield HS

Vaibhav Mahajan MagnetIQ

Liam Maher Landmark High School

Ryan Maloney Mercyhurst Prep

Padhu Manninagarajan Horace Greeley HS

Isaac Mansell Hire

Elizabeth Margulis Princeton

Javier Mariscal Belen Jesuit Prep

micaela mazzocchi Pembroke Pines Charter High School

Hope McClew Randolph High School

Chaminda Medage Townsend Harris High School

Rajesh Mendonca Lambert High School

Niko Menegatos Poly Prep Country Day School None

Sherry Meng Brophy College Prep

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:11 PM MST

Email for docs: sherry.meng91@gmail.com

tech>truth - but high threshold for stupid arguments. I'll vote for it if it's dropped, but if your opponent says no, that's all I need. Noting I will give you an earful in rfds if such an argument comes up!

-Topicality: I understand progressive arguments are the norm. However, I am a firm believer that we debate a topic for a reason. No one should walk in the round without looking at the topic and just win off an argument that is not directly related to the topic. The educational value is maximized when people actually research and debate the topic. All tools are at your disposal as long as it's on topic per the NSDA website for the tournament.

-Theory: I default fairness and education good. If you don't like fairness or education, then I will vote for your opponents just to be unfair per your value. I default to fairness first but I'm easily swayed. I default reasonability, I tend to gut check everything, consider me as a lay judge.

-K and Phil: not well versed in these, so don't assume I get your argument by saying a few phrases. Warrant your arguments, I don't know any jargon. Noting for phil, I default util unless you can persuade me otherwise.

-Tricks: Not a big fan of it. You are unlikely to get my vote if you don't argue very well with a trick. I don't think they're real arguments.

-Speed: I can handle speed up to 200 words per minute. Hopefully, that will improve over time. You can't sacrifice clarity for speed before you lose me.

-Argumentation: A clean link chain is highly appreciated. Solid warrants will also help a lot.

-Organization: Sign-post is very helpful.

If you want to talk science, make sure you get the facts right. I am an engineer by training and I am very quick to spot mistakes in scientific claims. Even though I would not use it against you unless your opponent catches it, you may get an earful from me about it in RFD.

I assign seats based on who is AFF and who is NEG, so flip before you unpack.

General things:

- I like to describe myself as a flay judge, but I try my best not to intervene. Sometimes I hear ridiculous arguments (usually "scientific" arguments), and I will tell you while I disclose why they are bad. That said, I will always evaluate the round based on what is said in the round, and my own opinions/knowledge won't make an impact on the decision.

- Be clear on your link chain; during the summary and final focus, you must explain your argument's logical reason.

- Speed threshold: if you go above 200 words per minute I'll start missing details on my flow

- Evidence: I only call evidence if asked; it's up to you to tell me when evidence is bad.

- Jargon: Public Forum is meant to be judged by anyone off the street, so don't use jargon.

- Progressive Argumentation: Don't read it. Topicality is essential. The side that deviates from topicality first loses.

- Weighing: if you don't weigh, I'll weigh for you and pick what I like.

If you have any questions, just ask me before the round.

Murali Menon Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Oscar Eduardo Mercado Hire None

Rafael Mier Waring School

Ram Miller Newton South High School

Sophia Mills Hire

Robert Missell Ivy Bridge Academy

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 10:48 AM EDT

Hi, I've been doing debate for 8 years now. I do college policy now. I'm “tech” (tabula rasa, will vote for pretty much any argument, won't do any work for you, etc etc)

TLDR:(1) and (11) under "General Preferences" + (1), (4), and (5) under "On the Flow"

Bergen YS is peak

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

General Preferences

1) Start an email chain BEFORE the round please. Yes I want to be added at ymcdebate@gmail.com

2) Time yourselves please

3) We don't have to start right away but let's try to get going by the official start time

4) Call me Bruce, Bobby, Judge, Sensei, or Vengeance, I don't really care just don't be disrespectful

5) Don't be a jerk or racist pls

6) Quality > Quantity (but do whatever your heart desires)

7) If you're recording pls get everyone's (including mine and the tournaments) approval first

8) I've coached on UNSC so IK what's up for the most part but please assume I haven't done any research

9) pls don't steal prep >:(

10) I think the debate space should be more accessible. While I do have coaching obligations, if you're looking for further feedback after the round, want to do redos, want me to look over something, etc, I'm happy to do so just lmk

11) If there's anything I can do to accommodate your needs don't be afraid to reach out or ask

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

On the flow

1) I'm open to voting on any argument so long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. DeDev is as equally a valid argument as "SUPs are bad for the environment so we should ban them" is.

2) You should frontline in 2nd rebuttal

3) I'm cool with extrapolation/cross apps as long as they aren't super brand new BUT generally the rule of thumb is if it wasn't in the constructive speeches (or 1st summary) it probably doesn't belong in the back half

4) You need warrants. I don't care if they're good warrants. I don't care if they are you made them up. You just need warrants. You need to You need to have a complete link chain for any offense read. You need to extend 100% of the link chain on any offense you go for. The one thing I'm rude about is having implications and warrants. If you don't give me (and extend) every basic part of the argument I probably won't vote on it. If there's no implication (reason why it matters on my ballot) I probably won't vote on it. FOR EXAMPLE:

"SUPs are bad for us and the environment" Ok? So how does the aff change that??

"Pref neg on timeframe because econ decline happens immediately and climate change takes years" Ok? So why do I care??

If I can ask myself "So what?" on any line of your analysis, you are probably doing something wrong

So PLEASE make sure you have clear extensions and implications. The more specific your internal link and solvency, the better off you'll be.

5) Signpost. I NEED you to signpost. Tell me where you're at and number of responses/frontlines

6) Empirics aren’t responses without a warrant. They prove your side of the argument is more probable but they still need an argument to be paired with.

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

Weighing

1) Weighing should start in the summaries (rebuttal if you're chill like that) so avoid going too new in final with it

2) Weighing is great, try to do it (ideally for all offense including turns)

3) Weighing is great but it's a waste of our time if it isn't comparative. Probability is not a real weighing mechanism (90% of the time) and I'm able to tell that 900k deaths is greater than 11 deaths on my own, thank you

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

Progressive Args

Ks:

I'm a K debater myself now, I read Beller, SO I'm 100% cool with you running a K. A soft left aff is ideal, a topical link is good, but tbh I'll still vote on something 100% non-T if you want me to. My big caveat is that you need to explain EVERY PART of the argument (top to bottom) in basic, easy-to-follow terms. Beyond the fact that I literally might just not get the argument right away, it's still an argument just like any other topical AC/NC. If the extent of your solvency explanation on the alt is "we're an intervention in the word economy of the debate space" I will physically throw a fit. Other than that you're good to go if you want to have a K round.

Theory:

To keep this short: I think debate kind of needs to have a solid foundation in post-fiat args BUT I also don't believe in the idea of arguments being "friv". If you're winning the warrant debate, I see no difference between a disclosure shell and shoe theory. Trix are for kids and that's y'all so have at it. Only three things to note on theory

a) I will hold you to the same standard for a link chain/extension as any other argument. So you have to have the interp, violation, standard (at least the one(s) you go for), impact, and DTD in both back half speeches.

b) I don't believe in this "spirit of the text" nonsense by default. You can 100% make arguments for it, and I'll be 100% tabula rasa about it, but you read what you read so just saying the words "doesn't matter because the spirit of the interp/text" is not going to cut it

c) I actually tend to lean towards RVIs good by default so if your opps go for RVIs you have to win the warrant debate on why they shouldn't be considered (ie just saying "no RVIs" isn't going to cut it)

Other than that, go nuts.

Framing/ROTB:

I have no problem with framing in and of itself. However, I DO have a problem with the way that they tend to be run in PF. IF you plan on reading either framing or a ROTB that's completely fine but please do note that

a) There is a difference between a ROTB and framing. If you don't know the difference, don't read a ROTB.

b) Not to beat a dead horse but yk, framing/ROTBs need to be extended (at least in summary and final idrc about rebuttal) with 100% of the warranting you're going for. Saying "extend our structural violence framing about stopping hidden violence" is NOT a proper extension

c) pls don't read framing and then read arguments that don't fit under your framing

d) Even "moral obligation" arguments still require warrants as to why we have a moral obligation to do X

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

Speaker Points

Easy ways to lose speaks:

Repeatedly cut your opponents off
Be rude to anyone in the round
Taking super long to pull up ev
Extending through ink
Not signposting
Calling everything dropped when it's not
Unclear speed

Easy ways to gain speaks:

Throw in a Taylor Swift or Pusha T reference
Having fun with it
Bringing me long flow paper
Signposting well
Good weighing
Smart strategy
Calling states in Eastern Europe "Yugoslavia"

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

Evidence

1) I won't look at evidence unless you tell me to and I won't call for evidence unless you tell me to

2) I think evidence should be the arena, not the fight. I will almost always prefer good warrants over good ev

3) Please try to be somewhathonest about ev

4) I'm not the "send all ev before speech" type but I also do think you should have ev ready to go and be willing to share if your opps ask for it

5) I'm letting you know now if you ev challenge in front of me, you'll probably lose. I have a pretty high threshold for what misrepresentation of ev is worth losing a whole round over. Unless your opponents are doing something legitimately unethical, then I probably would avoid ev challenges.

6) If there is a clash on evidence, do the ev (and or warrant comparison), don't make me intervene pls

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

FAQ

Can I use speed? Yeah I mean go for it but make sure you're clear, ideally send a doc, and keep in mind that if I can't flow it without looking at your doc then I'm probably not writing it down.
Is defense sticky? iS deFeNSe sTiCky? no. it's not.
Can I read new wieghing in final? too late pal (unless its a response to new weighing in summary)
Is cross open? Sure we ball
Why are we still doing this activity? If you find an answer please let me know
Does a split panel change my judging prefs? Generally, I still want all of the procedural things to meet my normal prefs BUT I will give y'all a bit more credence on things like extensions or the LbyL just don't be egregious
Is cross binding? I mean generally yes but you can make arguments as to why it shouldn't be

Thomas Moffitt Concord Carlisle High School

Wilbur Moffitt Concord Carlisle High School

Sanjib mohanty Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS

Ryuji Morishita Milton Academy

Ravi Mundlapati Westborough High School

Alexa Murphy The Masters School

Alexander O'Donnell Regis High School

Dennis O'Donnell Regis High School

Diana Odasso The Greene School

Iman Onbargi Hire

Joleen Once Randolph High School

Mia Orta Ft Lauderdale High School

Kiersten O’Sullivan Lumos Debate Institute (MS) None

Uday Palled North Allegheny

Jacob Paltrowitz Horace Mann School

Olivia Pappas Lumos Debate Institute (MS)

Angelina Parker Hire

Giselle Paulson Hire

Daniel Perez Hire

Donny Peters Brooklyn Emerging Leaders Academy

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 1:39 PM EDT

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

Linda Peterson Neenah High School

John Petrides Regis High School None

Karisha Petty Grand Oaks High School

Micheal Pierre LRMS Debaters None

Jeff Pillet-Shore Oyster River Bobcats

Bryce Piotrowski Seven Lakes High School

Last changed on Wed May 8, 2024 at 7:16 AM CDT

In short:

Put me on the email chain before I show up. Send speech docs (i.e., Word docs as attachments) before any speech in which you are going to read evidence. Read good evidence. Debate about what you want. I'd strongly prefer it have some relation to the topic. Speed is fine so long as you're clear, slow down/differentiate tags, and clearly signpost arguments. I will not read the document during your speech. Theory is silly and I'd rather vote on anything else. Critical arguments are fine, if grounded in topic lit and you can articulate what voting for you is/does. Debaters should read more lines from fewer pieces of evidence. If you have time, please read everything in my paradigm. It's not that long.

he/him

I've been involved in competitive speech and debate since 2014. I am the Director of Speech and Debate at Seven Lakes High School in Katy, Texas. I competed in PF and Congress in high school and NPDA-style parliamentary debate in college at Minnesota.

I am also a Co-Director of Public Forum Boot Camp (PFBC) in Minnesota. If you do high school PF and you want to talk to me about camp, let me know.

I am conflicted against Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI).

Put me on the email chain. Please flip and get fully set up before the round start time. My email is my first name [dot] my last name [at] gmail. Add sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com, sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com, or sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com depending on the event I am judging you in. The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes CL 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

In general:

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. I would like you to be persuasive, entertaining, kind, and strategic. Feel free to ask clarifying questions before the debate.

How I decide rounds/preferences:

I can judge whatever. I will vote for whatever argument wins on the flow. I want to judge a small but deep debate about the topic.

I've judged or been a part of several thousand debates in various formats over the past decade. I have seen, gone for, and voted for lots of arguments. My preference is that you demonstrate mastery of the topic and a well-thought-out strategy during the round and that you're excited to do debate and engage with your opponents' research. The best rounds consist of rigorous examination and comparison of the most recent and academically legitimate topic literature. I would like to hear you compare many different warrants and examples, and to condense the round as early as possible. Ignoring this preference will likely result in lower speaker points.

I flow, intently and carefully. I will stop flowing when my timer goes off. I will not flow while reading a document, and will only use the email chain or speech doc to look at evidence when instructed to by the competitors or after the round if the interpretation of a piece of evidence is vital to my decision. There is no grace period of any length. I will not vote on an argument I did not flow.

There is not a dichotomy between "truth" and "tech". Obviously, the team that does the better debating will win, and that will be determined by arguments that I've flowed, but you will have a much more difficult time convincing me that objectively bad arguments are true than convincing me that good arguments are true. In other words, an argument's truth often dictates its implication for my ballot because it informs technical skill.

I will not vote for unwarranted arguments, arguments that I cannot explain in my RFD, or arguments I did not flow. I have now given several decisions that were basically: "I am aware this was on the doc. I did not flow it during your speech time." Most PF rounds I judge are decided by mere seconds of argumentation, and most PF teams should probably think harder about how to warrant their links and compare their terminal impacts than they do right now.

Zero risk exists. I probably won't vote on defense or presumption, but I am theoretically willing to.

An average speaker in front of me will get a 28.5.

Critical arguments:

I am a decent judge for critical strategies that are well thought out, related to the topic, and strategically executed. I am happy to vote to reject a team's rhetoric, to critically examine economic and political systems of power, etc. if you explain why those impacts matter. In a PF context, these arguments seem to struggle with not being fleshed out enough because of short speech times but I'm not ideologically opposed to them.

I am not a great judge for strategies that ignore the resolution. I will vote for arguments that reject the topic if there are warrants for why we ought to do that and you win those warrants. But, if evenly debated, relating your strategy to the topic is a good idea.

I am a terrible judge for strategies that rely on in-round "discourse" as offense. I generally do not think that these strategies have an impact or solve the harms with debate they identify. I've voted for these arguments several times, and I still find them unpersuasive - I just found the other team's defense of debate worse.

Theory:

Theory is generally boring and I rarely want to listen to it without it being placed in a specific context based on the current topic.

I am more than qualified to evaluate theory debates and used to go for theory in college quite a bit.

I would strongly prefer not to listen to debates about setting norms. Disclosure is generally good. Paraphrasing is generally bad.

Here is a list of arguments which will be very difficult to win in front of me: violations based on anything that occurred outside of the current debate, frivolous theory or other positions with no bearing on the question posed by the resolution, trigger warning theory, anything categorized as a trick or meant to evade clash, anything that is labeled as an IVI without a warranted implication for the ballot.

I recognize the strategic value of theory and that sometimes, you need to go for it to win a debate. If you decide to do that, you might get very low speaker points, depending on how asinine I think your position is. I will be persuaded by appeals to reasonability and that substantive debate matters more than your position.

Evidence:

Evidence ethics arguments/IVIs/theory/etc. will not be treated as theory - I will ask the team who has introduced the argument about evidence ethics if I should stop the debate and evaluate the challenge to evidence to determine the winner/loser of the round. The same goes for clipping. This is obviously different than reasons to prefer a piece of evidence or other normal weighing claims. I reserve the right to vote against teams that I notice are fabricating evidence during the round even if the other team does not make it a voting issue.

You should read good evidence and disclose case positions after you debate.

I have lots of other thoughts on speech and debate that you can read here if you would like - it encompasses some past paradigms, etc.

Jim Poyner Summit HS

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 8:19 AM EDT

I describe myself as a "flay" judge. I flow a round but I rarely base my decision solely on flow. If a team misses a response to a point, I don't penalize that team if the drop concerned a contention that either proves unimportant in the debate or is not extended with weighing. I have come to appreciate summaries and final focuses that are similar, that both weigh a team's contentions as well as cover key attacks. I like to hear clear links of evidence to contentions and logical impacts, not just a firehose of data. I prefer hard facts over opinion whenever possible, actual examples over speculation about the future.

I ABSOLUTELY DEMAND CIVILITY IN CROSSFIRES! Ask your question then allow the other side to answer COMPLETELY before you respond further. Hogging the clock is frowned upon. It guarantees you a 24 on speaker points. Outright snarkiness or rudeness could result in a 0 for speaker points. Purposely misconstruing the other side's evidence in order to force that team to waste precious time clarifying is frowned upon. Though I award very few 30s on speaker points, I very much appreciate clear, eloquent speech, which will make your case more persuasive.

I have seen a trend to turn summaries into second rebuttals. I HATE THIS. A summary should extend key offense from case and key defense from rebuttal then weigh impacts. You cannot do this in only two minutes if you burn up more than a minute trying to frontline. If I don't hear something from case in summary you will lose most definitely. Contrary to growing belief, the point of this event is NOT TO WIN ON THE FLOW. The point is to research and put forth the best warrants and evidence possible that stand up to rebuttal.

When calling cards, avoid distracting "dumps" aimed at preoccupying the other side and preventing them from prepping. In recent tournaments I have seen a rise in the inability of a team to produce a requested card QUICKLY. I will give you a couple of minutes at most then we will move on and your evidence likely will be dropped from the flow. The point is to have your key cards at the ready, preferably in PDF form. I have also seen a recent increase in badly misconstrued data or horrifically out of date data. The rules say full citation plus the date must be given. If you get caught taking key evidence out of context, you're probably going to lose. If you can't produce evidence that you hinge your entire argument on, you will definitely lose.

The bottom line is: Use your well-organized data and logic to win the debate, not cynical tactics aimed at distraction or clock dominance.

Andrew Prescott Montville

Demi Protonentis Syosset High School

Zhanliang Qin Greenwich HS

Shashwat Rai Hire

Victoria Raikes The Bronx High School Of Science

Mark Raj DuPont Manual Independent

Clare Rajapakse Hire

Ramkumar Rajaraman Potomac Debate Academy None

Susan Ramsey Midtown High School

Moeen Razzaque Hire

Benjamin Redler Ransom Everglades

Alexandra Reed Grand Oaks High School None

Kim Reuter JR Masterman

Shanta Ricks Thomas Edison EnergySmart Charter School None

Eduardo Rincon Strake Jesuit College Preparatory

Tilly Robinson Hire

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 7:34 PM EDT

Hi y'all! My name is Tilly (she/her), and I'm excited to have the opportunity to judge your debate and/or speech rounds :)

Background: I'm a sophomore at Harvard College and currently debate in the American Parliamentary and British Parliamentary formats. I attended Bloomington High School South in Indiana. During high school, I competed most extensively in LD, Extemp, Impromptu, and Informative.

Lincoln-Douglas: I debated for all 4 years of high school, primarily in LD, and I was competitive on the Indiana circuit, where I attended 5-10 tournaments per year. If your debate experience is in traditional LD, please treat me as a flow judge. If your debate experience is in progressive/national circuit LD, you should probably treat me as a lay judge, at least to the extent that I have little familiarity with progressive debate (aside from what I've read in the debate blogosphere). Here are some notes about how I judge:

General Principles:

Debate encourages us to learn about interesting ideas that interact with each other in interesting ways. For me, the single most important thing you can do in a debate round is to genuinely think about the ideas in play. Why do your arguments make sense — or not? What contexts and assumptions underlie them? I think if you do this, you'll be more likely to win the round — and even if you don't, you will get more out of the debate.

I appreciate good research and well-chosen cards. That said, if you are relying on cards to make an argument, they should contain information that actually proves your point. For example, if I am choosing between argument (a), which relies on an assertion of some fact by a famous professor, and argument (b), which doesn't include a card but does include good analysis that negates argument (a), I will vote for argument (b). However, if I then hear argument (c) which provides sufficient empirical evidence to show that argument (b) is false and argument (a) is true, I will then vote for arguments (c & a).

I appreciate clash — make sure you are doing your best to understand and respond to your opponent's arguments. Especially if you're not going line-by-line, make sure to roadmap (on- or off-time) so I know how to structure my flow.

To vote off a given argument, I need to be able to believe that it's true (which requires warranting and, generally, evidence) as well as why it matters (keep in mind question like: what is the impact? why does it matter under this round's framework? how can I weigh this impact against other impacts in the round?).

I am "tech > truth" to an extent. However, I also consider myself reasonably well-informed about the world. Therefore, while I will try not to intervene in the round, if you are making an argument that contradicts common assumptions I might have drawn from, say, reading the news or taking history classes, you may have to do more argumentative work to persuade me of your argument.

Re: judge intervention, I will intervene less the more clearly you explain your arguments and their implications.

Some Specifics:

Please don't spread. (I'll let you know if I can't understand you — but just in general, assume I can't understand spreading.) I can flow relatively fast "normal" speech (and I understand the desire to fit as much information into the round as possible), but I will flow more accurately and in more detail the closer you are to a normal conversational pace.

Please use theory only as much as necessary to maintain a fair debate. Don't run tricks that are not also actual, good arguments.

That being said, I will evaluate most arguments (including kritiks, counterplans, etc., if in a circuit where those are a norm), as long as you explain them clearly (i.e., you offer warrants for all your arguments instead of simply name-dropping jargon, you explain any cards that aren't self-explanatory, you make it clear why your arguments are relevant to the resolution and my ballot).

Please send me your speech docs if you have them, but understand that I will only open them to check content/evidence if called (or if I'm skeptical about something that's asserted in the round), and that any argument you want me to evaluate should be clearly stated (and warranted, and backed up with any necessary cards) in your actual speeches.

Finally, remember that while I have specified some preferences here, my goal as a judge is to make debaters feel welcome and cast a well-considered ballot based on what happened in the round I judged. Please don't just run the arguments you think I'll "like" — run the arguments that you think are compelling, interesting, or important.

Other Debate Events: In general, my LD paradigm applies to all debate events. I have competed once in PF and once in Congress, and have judged both events. I have never competed in policy, but I've read at least one textbook on how to debate in policy (i.e., my knowledge extends to some familiarity with stock issues and a little bit of policy jargon, but I'm not familiar with technical arguments or current trends in the policy circuit).

I'm fine if you paraphrase evidence, but if you paraphrase, please make sure you also have a document with citations and cut cards corresponding to any evidence you mention in the round.

Congress

Your speeches are short, but please do your best to make them substantive! If you speak early, try to frame major issues in the round so that your speech stays relevant and resonant throughout. If you speak late, try to either (a) weigh arguments that were made earlier in the round and analyze how they interact with one another, (b) introduce new arguments/perspectives/evidence that have not yet been considered, or (c) both. I vote off substance first, but I do appreciate style. :)

Extemp:

I love extemp. Make sure to answer your question. Like in debate, genuinely thinking about the question and its answer(s) will go a long way. Don't make up evidence. Don't freak out. Also, remember to give a speech you are comfortable with and confident in, instead of stressing about what I might like in a speech.

Here are some other things I do appreciate:

Interesting AGDs and transitions (as long as they don't detract from substance or strike a tone inappropriate to your question).

Signposting. Make sure I can clearly track your separate points!

Unified analysis. (This is when you have an umbrella thesis that unifies the separate points in your speech into an answer that is more specific/detailed than "yes" or "no." It's not necessary, and a good speech without unified analysis will beat a less good speech with it — but unified analysis may make your speech more cohesive if you can pull it off.)

Diversity of evidence. If you can cite different types of sources (e.g., an Associated Press article with breaking news, a book laying out an international relations theory, an NBER study on the gender wage gap), each offering a different perspective or type of information to bolster your points, then you will probably be able to put together a very well-rounded speech.

Quality and relevance of evidence. For some topics, recency of evidence matters a lot; for others, older evidence can still be valuable. Make sure to cite reputable news sources (think NPR or the Washington Post, not Fox News) and note biases or perspectives (e.g., the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank, while The Nation is a left-leaning magazine).

Context. If you can place your arguments in historical context, frame them with academic theories, or understand how seemingly disparate issues influence one another, I think that's really impressive.

Beyond that, of course, Extemp is a speech event, so I do care about style! I won't penalize you for small stumbles, but if one speech is significantly more fluent than another, that is a big point in its favor. Similarly, things like using vocal variation, gesturing naturally, embodying a range of emotions, and sounding like you're having a conversation (not, er, talking to a wall) will all help your speech stand out.

Other Speech Events:

Public Address

Be funny, be passionate, be solemn, be conversational — whatever tone(s) work best for you and your message.

I appreciate speeches that address interesting, arguable topics, rather than simply relying on platitudes or common assumptions. I enjoy clever rhetoric and powerful writing — as well as solid argumentation.

I weigh speaking style, writing style, and content in my decisions; because these factors play into one another, I don't categorically prioritize one over the other.

In Info, I appreciate creative and interesting visual aids (although I am totally willing to vote for a good speech with few or no VAs). Remember, visual aids should help you convey your message, not distract from it. I won't penalize you for small mishaps (e.g., you will be fine if your stand falls over).

Interp Events

I don't have much personal experience with interp, but I really enjoy watching interp and admire interp performers, and I'll judge as best I can.

I appreciate clear pops between characters and precise, creative blocking.

Although you didn't write your speech, you did select and cut it, so I will pay attention to your choices. Does the narrative make sense? Is the piece itself successful (i.e., is it thoughtful? is it funny? are the characters believable?).

If your piece seems to exist for the sole purpose of being maximally traumatic, I will rank you low.

The balances between naturalism and exaggeration, drama and humor, etc., are yours to strike. If I think you chose the right balance for your piece and performance style, I will rank you higher!

Miscellaneous:

Don't be discriminatory.

Please assume (within reason) that others in your round are well-intentioned. People with good intentions can still say harmful things, but usually it's more effective to explain to them why something is harmful than to ice them out of the conversation.

Speech and debate rankings are a zero-sum game, but speech and debate are not! I hope you have the opportunity to learn from your own research, reading, and practice; learn from one another; and find a community through speech and debate. Have fun!

David-Aaron Roth Charlotte Latin School

Faith Rounds Hire None

Ethan Roytman Germantown Friends School

Last changed on Sun May 12, 2024 at 2:05 PM EDT

Heritage ‘23 - ethanroytman@gmail.com & germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com - add me to the email chain

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW GOOD SHARVAA SELVAN WAS

Basics

Tech > Truth
Fine w/ speed
Did PF for 4 years

How to win with me/get good Speaks

WEIGH - be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and lwk rlly enjoy if weighing lets me evaluate the round without much thinking.
Send Cards (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) before case and rebuttal in the email chain. There is zero reason not to - you should be disclosing it anyway. Evidence exchanges in PF take way too long and speaks will be capped at 28 if you don't send rebuttal and case docs. Also if one team sends all their ev and the other doesn't I will just err towards that team on evidence questions.
Creative strategies - judging the same round over and over again gets so boring - multiple layers of offense r very fun, rebuttals full of impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. are all really fun and actually keep me awake during rounds
Keep off-time roadmaps to "neg, aff" or "aff, neg" they shouldn't be 15 words long - literally just signpost in your speech and you will be fine. Speaks are capped at 29 if its longer.
If you are going to be spreading and going hella fast in front half - slow it down in the back half and isolate clear offense that I can vote on.
I'm particularly receptive to disclosure theory and SPARK.

Prog Run Down

Theory - What I am most confident with and read it a bunch in high school. I'm also fine with friv, I think it makes debate fun every now and then. I haven't heard a team beat para in a while so if you win para good in front of me ill give you a 30. Also, apparently there is a spec RVIs shell on the circuit - dont read that in front of me its so stupid.
Kritkis - I am fine with Ks, but understand them less than theory and don't know a lot of big critical lit words. As a whole, I don't enjoy these debates as much; they are usually not read properly and aren't compelling. However, I will not carry that bias in evaluating the K. The only Non-T K that has ever been persuasive to me is WakeWork.
Trix/Other Random Stuff - Don't know as well, but stuff I have heard/vaguely understand: Skep, Baudrillard (ONLY Charity Cannibalism), and that's basically it. TBH I will vote on something that is well warranted and explained, but if you read something that I haven't mentioned, please explain it 2x more.
TLDR if the argument was at my wiki at some point I understand it (with some exceptions), if not err on the side of caution.

Miscellaneous

If you are looking for a free debate camp - novadebate.org.
If you don't know how to debate theory - https://pfforward.weebly.com/theory.html - pretty good explanation. If you read my paradigm, that means you can't say theory debate is inaccessible, and if you make that argument in the round, you will get a 27. "Varsity level debaters should be able to handle varsity level arguments" -[redacted].
I don't care about formalities - wear whatever makes you comfortable. I prefer Ethan to Judge, but it's really not that deep.
If it is an outround and you disagree with my decision, post round me.
Please DO NOT use blue highlighting lwk hard for me to see and if you are going fast I cant flow off the doc if its blue highlighting.
If you have any other questions, ask before the round or on messenger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCe5M3dWx30

Sophia Rubinstein Cary Academy

Last changed on Wed January 17, 2024 at 2:22 PM EDT

hi hi im soph i debated w ransom everglades for 4 years on the nat circuit. now i am a sophomore at emory and coach:)

preflow before round cuz as soon as everyone is there im starting

my emails are sophia.r9234@gmail.com and carypfd@gmail.com

pls add both emails to the email chain (I prefer email chains to docs) and send speech docs w/ cut cards

(i don't know why this is formatted weirdly tab just does it idk)

debate stuff

i will vote off the flow
tech > truth but don’t say anything ridiculous and this doesnt apply if it makes the round unsafe
start weighing in rebuttal if possible and keep it consistent
COMPARATIVE WEIGHING don’t just say “scope”
PLEASE WEIGH ANYTHING OFFENSIVE (THIS INCLUDES TURNS)
no new weighing in final, no offensive overviews starting at first summary but i dont rly like it in 2nd reb either
please collapse
extend links, not just a tagline with an impact

saying “extend tariko ‘21” is also not a link extension

signpost, especially in rebuttal, if i don’t know where you are i can’t flow
SIGN MY BALLOT FOR ME. tell me what i’m voting for and why. also tell me why i’m not voting for your opponents
if there’s no offense i’ll presume for the side that lost the coin flip
defense isnt sticky
you should have cut cards

if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to

I'm down w ks and paraphrase theory (shoutout jdog) but technically i never actually RAN a K or initiated theory i just know how they work so take that as u will - that being said I coach 3 K teams and understand how they should be run but in like a watered down pf way so run whatever u want but send rhetoric
with that being said- I have a very LOW threshold to feel bad if a team is in varsity and upset about hitting a varsity argument when there is a novice and/or JV division. if you are in varsity, be prepared to hit theory and potentially a K. simply saying "pf is for the public" and/or "I don't know how to answer this" probably wont win my ballot unless there is no nov division and you are clearly a nov. if that is the case-L25 for the team reading varsity stuff on novs, otherwise if you are volunteering to be in varsity nothing is off limits
I'm not the best w tricks but I can try
if you genuinely think I made a mistake you can postround but not aggressively pls <3
im not gonna flow cross so just say it in a speech
I don't hack for or against anyone so if you know me, that isn't going to influence my decision and I would be a waste of a strike
the only caveat to the thing above is if you are known to be problematic to like an egregious point (i.e having a national news article referencing being publicly antisemitic or saying racist, homophobic, or sexist things) then strike me lol. i cant like separate the art from the artist or whatever. ill down u.

speaking stuff

send speech docs even if you go slow and send all cut cards
i’m ok with speed as long as i can understand you, but i would still send the text to be safe
have fun, make jokes, but dont force it cuz thats weird
do not give speeches in crossfire, it’s so annoying
speaks

i start at a 28.5 ish (ill adjust based on how good the round is)
I'm a college student who flies to tourneys so if you give me paper that will make me very happy and likely to boost your speaks it will also make my rfd better cuz I don't like laptop flows
-.5 speaks for “starting with an off time road map”
-1 speaks if you miscut/misconstrue/lie about evidence
+1 speaks if you make me laugh
please don’t call me judge im literally 18 (you can just not say judge but if you NEED to address me specifically just call me soph i guess)
you will get high speaks if you and your partner have good energy together (i wont dock you speaks if you dont cuz you have enough problems at that point)
i’ll give speaks based on strategy, how well i can understand you, and (if necessary) rhetoric
i’ll drop you w 25s if you say anything offensive
at any camp/single pool tourney- if you read a k/theory on novs and it is obvious that they are novs prior to initiating i will drop you with 25s

Jason Rubman Novera Independent

Layla Ruiz American Debate League

Cambria Russell Cambridge Rindge and Latin

Tim Russell Cambridge Rindge and Latin

Lea Saba The PotomacSchool

Deepa Sachdeva Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Jonah Sah Poly Prep Country Day School

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 8:41 AM EDT

jonahpsah@gmail.com, put me on the chain and please send speech docs for case and rebuttal.

First year out, did PF for 8 years, semifinaled the prestigious 2018 middle school tournament of champions

I'm a flow judge, tech > truth etc. Everything said in a speech is true until someone says otherwise.

have fun/be funny; it's high school debate; I think rounds should be relaxed. that being said, I will do my best to take the round seriously. debate takes a lot of work and I know what it feels like to have judges who aren't trying their hardest, so I will do my best to match or exceed your effort.

Collapse (for your own good)

When deciding the round, I will look to the following: I'll evaluate weighing, then look if there is any extended offense being won off of the weighing, then to any other offense.

If it isn't in summary and final, I won't evaluate it (so extend case/whatever you're going for). Don’t just say “extend this argument/card,” you need to re-explain the argument/its warrants. I'm not really afraid to drop a team that is winning bc they screwed up their extensions. The one caveat is that I'm ok with the weighing debate unfolding kind of late: if there is new weighing in second summary, you can respond in first final.

Regarding speed: I can flow just about anything under 300 wpm if you are clear. A few caveats though: a) I won't flow off of a doc in PF unless I space out or something. I know that makes me kind of old-fashioned but as a wise man once told me, "this isn't an essay writing contest." If you ask before round, I will clear you so that you know exactly what I'm catching. b) SLOW DOWN FOR TAGS PLZZ like even in policy they do that, it barely takes more time

If it isn't frontlined in 2nd rebuttal, it's dropped. (This applies to offense and defense, but not weighing.)

It's not 2017, defense isn't sticky

cross is binding? obviously? what is the point otherwise? obviously bring up anything important in a speech. I will pay at least some attention to cross though so don't lie, it's kind of obvious

I don't care about presentation: wear whatever, be silly, swear if you want. this also means that the whole jostling-for-perceptual-dominance in cross stuff is unnecessary (in fact it kinda pisses me off). I'll give speaks based on how good the content of your speeches is, not how pretty you say it.

Unless evidence is a) going to decide the round and b) contested in a way that I can't resolve, I won't call or look at anything. I think evidence debates are the same as any other argument: something is true unless it is responded to. If someone indicts your ev, that indict is true until you say otherwise, and I'm not going to check it to make sure. The only time I will look at ev is if teams can't agree on facts about the evidence itself (eg. the date it was written, author quals, etc.).

An argument with evidence obviously carries more weight than one without, but I like when teams make a bunch of analytics, especially in rebuttal.

I'm ok with postrounding, if you disagree with my decision you don't have to dance around it with polite questions (as long as you aren't rude). It is entirely possible that I screw up a decision. I will say 2 things though: first, if I screw up it's probably at least partially on you. anything that can decide the round should be clearly laid out for me. second, you may convince me that I'm wrong, but that won't change anything. I can't change the ballot, so all that will happen is that I will feel kinda bad and you will still have lost. So by all means, go ahead and prove that I'm wrong, but it will only do so much for you.

FW: two thoughts: a) a group being underprioritized is not enough a reason to prioritize it: explain why there are fewer intervening actors or it leads to better real world policy etc. b) read it in case or rebuttal... I'm not gonna evaluate framing in summary, that's obviously so unfair.

Ks: I think Ks are awesome, I wrote/read some in high school (cap, securitization, orientalism). That being said, I was still in PF, so I'm not that familiar with most K lit. I also think Ks can be read kinda poorly, so make sure you have at least a link, impact and alt in your case (and that you extend them). It's pretty clear when people read args that they don't really understand themselves, and if you can't articulate your argument and I don't get it I won't vote for it.

theory: I will not lie. I find most theory rounds tedious and kind of boring and not that important. I learned a lot in debate, but I don't think I would have learned much more or less if everyone did or didn't disclose/paraphrase/whatever. That being said, I ended up having a lot of theory rounds, and I'm comfortable judging it. However, if anyone feels actively unsafe/uncomfortable, you don't have to whip out a shell: just tell me/message me on FB and I will stop the round.

I'm not a fan of reading progressive arguments on inexperienced kids -- it will not lead to better norms/interesting discourse, it's just kinda mean. If you are being a jerk I'll tank your speaks so just use your judgment. -Maya sachs

If you read dumb stuff (you know exactly what I mean) you're getting like 0 speaks. I just don't think friv theory/tricks/whatever are that funny, and beyond that I have no idea what benefit anyone gets from them.

shoutout to my boo thang george tiesi #thepartnership

30 speaks if you can name all 40 barbie movies from memory before round. no notes or anything. blindfolded. in order of release date. while spinning around in a circle. while balancing on one foot.

Richael Saka Lumos Debate Institute (MS) None

Manny Salazar LION Charter High School None

Mohamed Saleem Hire

Dhrishni Sampat Lumos Debate Institute (MS)

Victor Sanchez Palm Beach Independent

Ram Santhanam Newton South High School

Jai Saraf Lumos Debate Institute (MS) None

Andrew Scheufele Newton South High School

Gavin Schwen Syosset High School

Liz Scott JR Masterman

Matthew Sebastian Delbarton School

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 12:50 PM EDT

Background

I debated for Delbarton for four years in high school so consider me more of a flow judge.

Email Chains:Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by end of constructive. If case is paraphrased, also send case rhetoric. I will not accept locked google docs. Additionally, teams should send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

The subject of the email should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order) .

Please add matthew.seb15@gmail.com and greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain.

Evidence

Have cut cards if they are called.

I might ask for evidence after the round if needed.

I evaluate the round based on the flow from an offensive/defense paradigm.

Generally tech>truth.

I can handle moderate speed, but DO NOT sacrifice clarity for speed. If you're going to be going fast please send a speech doc

I will not flow cross so anything important said in cross should be brought up in the subsequent speech.

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline all defense and turns.

Extend offense and defense in summary, this means case, turns, responses, etc--- nothing is sticky. Evidence extensions should extend both the card tag and the warrant (eg. simply saying "extend Jones 20" is not a sufficient evidence extension)

Signpost (tell me where you are on the flow). Off time roadmaps are welcome.

Progressive Argumentation

I have some experience with theory. I usually default to competing interps and have a very low threshold for responses on frivolous theory. I have limited experience with common K's (i.e. Feminism, Capitalism, Securitization) and no experience with high theory lit (i.e. Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche) I will try my best to evaluate these arguments but run them at your own risk. I prefer topical K's but will evaluate a nontopical K if you want to run it. Make sure you explain and warrant your K really well in the back half because if I don't understand it I'm not voting off it.

How you win my ballot:

1. Weigh (tell me why I should prefer your argument). Start weighing as soon as possible.

2. Collapse

3. Always warrant and extend

If this paradigm is too short here are some other paradigms I generally agree with, Eric Moldoveanu, Noah Mengisteab, Alex Sun, Zach Dyar.

Sharvaa Selvan American Heritage Broward HS

Krishanthi Senarathna Early Scholars

Jacob Senghas Wayland High School

Amit Sethi Lexington HS

Sohana Shahnaz Walt Whitman

Vivek Sharma North Allegheny None

Julia Shephard Hire

Daniel Sheremeta Hire

Jarred Sherman Milton Academy

Ahmed Fahim Shihab Hire

Louis Shraytah Newton South High School

Nilay Shriram Livingston High School

Sangeeta Shroff Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

saurabh shukla Walt Whitman

Abdullah Shahid Sial Hire None

Greg Sierra Pinecrest High School

Mike Siller Stuyvesant High School

Last changed on Fri May 24, 2024 at 9:12 AM EDT

Michael Siller Paradigm

About Me: I am a parent judge on behalf of either Stuyvesant High School or the Bronx High School of Science, depending on the tournament. I am not a "technical" judge. I have been a practicing attorney for over 30 years and have a good sense of what makes a persuasive argument and an effective presentation style.

Procedural Preferences: There are a few guidelines I will ask you to follow as you present your case, to allow me to most effectively understand and judge your arguments:

(i) Please identify yourself at the start. I want to make sure I get your names, schools, the side you will be arguing, and the order in which you will present so that I can correctly assign speaker points.

(ii) Please try to avoid speaking too quickly. I prefer that you speak clearly, focus on your most important points, and avoid trying to cram in every argument you can think of. It will be more difficult for me to follow the flow if you are speaking too quickly.

(iii) Mind your time: I will not be judging you by how many seconds you are under or over the limit. A few seconds over is not going to be penalized; on the other hand, you should strive to use up as much of your available time as possible in a meaningful way.

(iv) Be polite. There's an apt maxim from the field of legal ethics: One may disagree without being disagreeable. Attack and criticize your opponents' arguments, not your opponents.

"Theory" arguments. If you intend to make theory arguments that's fine, provided you also engage on the merits of the topic at issue. Debaters will be judged and scored on how they address the assigned topic.

Evaluation Criteria: I will evaluate your presentation based on a combination of how well you: (a) appear to demonstrate a mastery of the substance (about which you may I assume I know far less than you); (b) present your arguments logically, coherently, and persuasively; and (c) refute and weigh your opponents' arguments, as well as on your presentation style (e.g., poise, professionalism, and ability to think on your feet). Concerning thinking on your feet, I pay particular attention to how well you comport yourself in cross-fire.

For purposes of sharing evidence, my email is mbsiller1@gmail.com

I wish everyone good luck and look forward to your presentations!

Hirdesh Singh Westborough High School

IP Singh Westborough High School None

Arnav Sinha Montville

Natalia Siwek Hire

Gabrielle Smith Gulliver Prep

Sahil Sood Hire

Blade Spataro Landmark High School

Katherine Steger Fort Collins High School

Alan Stein Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Michael Stewart Millburn High School

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 2:39 AM EDT

My history is such that I have participated in Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, Public Forum, and Congressional debate. The vast majority of it was spent in a very traditional district in Lincoln-Douglas. That being said, I do believe that my varied background does allow for an understanding of progression in each format of debate. I am not entirely shut off to hearing anything, I might not wear a smile on my face about it... but I have voted on things like topicality and theory stuff. Now, if we want to get down to the specifics.

LD: First and foremost, Lincoln Douglas is evaluative debate. It doesn't always necessarily call for specific action, sometimes (most of the time) it just calls for justifying an action or state. I don't buy that there always has to be a plan. Additionally, I'm of the mindset that there is framework and substance. I tend to favor substance debate a lot more, that being said, if there can be a good amount of discussion on both sides of that, even better. I like to hear about the resolution, policy started to degenerate in my area to a series of Kritiks and bad topicality argumentation. I walk in expecting the resolution... I'd like to talk about things pertaining to the resolution if at all possible. The role of the ballot begins at the beginning as who was the better debater, if you want to change that let me know, but I tend to like it there. Finally, in terms of evidence, I hate calling for cards, but if it is so central and the round leaves everything riding on that piece of evidence I'll call for it. (Also if it's that key, and I for some reason miss it in my flow... Judges are human too.)

PF (UPDATED): Having judged and coached for a few years, I've learned to let a lot of the round play out. I HIGHLY value topical debate. It is possible to have critical stances while maintaining some relationship to the resolution. Additionally, I think PF is designed in such a way that there is not enough time to really argue K or T stances in a truly meaningful way. Take advantage of the back half of the round and CLARIFY the debate, what is important, why is it important and why are you winning? Tell me what I'm voting for in the final focus, make my job easier, and there's a good chance I'll make your tournament better.

One last note, please don't be mean spirited in the round, don't say that something "literally makes no sense." Don't tell me there is a flaw, show me the flaw.

In summation, run whatever you are happiest with, I might not be, but it's your show, not mine. Be great, be respectful, have fun. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'm not a mean judge (Unless I am decaffeinated, or someone is being disrespectful).

Oliver StJohn Delbarton School

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 11:01 AM EDT

Oliver St John

he/him

Background: I did Public Forum for four years at Delbarton School in New Jersey, and I am currently studying Computer Science at Boston College. I haven't been involved with debate for a couple years so I may be a bit rusty. I have forgotten a good bit of the jargon so please keep that in mind.

Email Chain: Teams should start an email chain immediately with the following email subject: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Please add greenwavedebate@delbarton.org and ostjohn8@gmail.com to the email chain. Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive. I cannot accept locked Google Docs; please copy and paste all text into email and send it in the email change. It would be ideal to send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

In round:

I'm comfortable with a relatively high speaking speed, but please prioritize clarity, especially for an online tournament. In addition, make sure to signpost well after constructive speeches so I know where you are on the flow.

Please don't only refer to evidence with the card names. Always include the gist of what the evidence says whenever you mention the authors name as well.

I prefer tech over truth, but make sure arguments are warranted well and that you weigh them properly.

For rebuttal, please warrant responses as opposed to just reading them off and not really interacting with your opponents' arguments. Second rebuttal should include frontlining.

Summary is when you should begin collapsing and weighing, if you try to make any weighing analysis in the final focus that didn't start in the summary I will not regard it. Please extend your responses as well as your arguments, and again make sure to signpost well.

Your final focus should be similar to your summary, while taking into account your opponents' summary. While flowing your arguments cleanly throughout the round is great, you also need to make sure you argue why the impacts outweigh your opponents' impacts and how they interact with your opponents'.

Additionally:

Most importantly, show respect for your opponents, the competition, and yourself. I understand that debating can often get a bit heated, but remember to keep yourself in check or it will reflect in your speaker score, or in worse scenarios, the ballot.

Have cut cards available for when they are called. I understand tech issues and whatnot happen, but if you cannot produce a card in a timely manner the round will precede as though that evidence does not exist.

You can feel free to run things like theory and Ks, but please be aware that I am not used to judging them nor did I often debate against them. If you plan on running them, please explain very clearly what the problem is and why I should vote for you. If I don't understand your argument, I won't vote for you. That is a risk you have to decide whether or not you want to take.

Have fun with it! I know debate is very important to competitors for various reasons, but don't forget your time in this circuit is limited and you'll want to enjoy it while you can. Trust me - it goes by a lot faster than you think!

Best of luck in round!

Dora Straus Horace Greeley HS

Evan Streams The Dalton School

Qibin Su Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Matt Suescun Bergen County Academies None

Luke Sullivan The Dalton School

Johnathan Sun Hire

Lux Sun Concord Carlisle High School

Last changed on Tue May 28, 2024 at 7:38 PM EDT

Hey, I'm Lux (he/him/his). I'm a rising senior at Concord-Carlisle.

email: lsun25@concordcarlisle.org

First, any problematic language/behavior and not providing trigger warnings will get you reported to tab if need be. That includes stuff like suicide/self-harm, sexual assault, abuse, mental illness, and addiction.

GENERAL (debate):

Please write my ballot for me! That means weighing properly, extending, and warranting evidence and responses. If you want me to evaluate something, it needs to be pulled through the flow. If something important happens during cross, bring it up in a later speech.
tech > truth and tab rasa (i'll evaluate whats on my flow and only whats on my flow, regardless of my opinions/biases on the topic).
Progressive arguments (theory, ks, etc) are fine.
joke cases are fine if you clear it with your opponents BEFORE round.
my threshold for arguments is quite low. if you're running substance, you need a card for every step of your link chain. if you're running prog, it needs to make logical sense to an average human.
Please time yourselves. I'll stop flowing when your timer goes off.
I'll allow paraphrasing if it keeps the original spirit of the evidence. HOWEVER, if your opponent calls for the card(s), you need to be able to point to which parts you paraphrased.
I tend to give fairly high speaks unless there's a reason for me not to (i.e. bigotry and extreme rudeness)
Speed is fine up to ~240wpm, but be mindful of your opponents + send speech docs if your opponents ask
Please weigh!!! I cannot emphasize this enough.
Novices, you're doing great (and please know that we're all on your side here)

PF/BQ:

Please let your opponents get a word in during cross
1st speakers: try to collapse in summary please
2nd speakers: please, please, please weigh in ff
ninja edit: please do NOT run prog in BQ if you can avoid it

LD:

I started off in pf, which influences how I judge this event.
I have never competed in this event but have judged it enough to still be a flow judge

SPEECH:

if you are doing a partner event, please don't talk over your partner. otherwise, breathe and speak clearly (and try not to go over time if you can avoid it). also please keep in mind i don't judge too much speech (i do a lot more debate stuff)

sidenote: if you've read this far, thank you (and please let me know if you did!) if you need a mid-tournament laugh, please readAnthony Babu's paradigm

Annika Sunkara Southlake Carroll

Michael Surko Hunter College

Craig Swartz Germantown Academy

Steven Szwejkowski SA Harlem East

Selma Tabakovic American Heritage Palm Beach HS

Last changed on Fri June 14, 2024 at 11:09 PM EDT

Hi! I am Selma Tabakovic (she/her pronouns) and I debated Public Forum in high school. I graduated from American University and Brooklyn Law School. I am an external PF coach for American Heritage Palm Beach/Boca.

Generally: Tech>truth. However, if I think that something is not handled effectively on the flow (ex: really blippy responses in rebuttal that are not warranted and are later extended with new warranting), I will likely vote on the truth of an argument.

What I like to see in the round:

Comparative weighing in FF is key! Tell me why your arguments are more impactful than your opponents arguments and compare what the best version of their argument is compared to yours.

Please extend and emphasize the warrants for your arguments, particularly in summary and final focus. In second rebuttal, please frontline and, if possible, collapse on the contention(s) you want to win on.

I love hearing unique arguments in PF! Feel free to run any argument about imperialism/colonialism/etc within the PF topic. I think engaging with these types of arguments within a round makes debate more educational, impactful, and interesting.

What isn't necessary in the round:

Please do not give me an off-time roadmap unless you are running theory. I will be able to follow your speech if you sign post!

Please do not ask "I am first speaker, so can I have first question?" Please assume that first speaker in the round has first question.

Please do not spread! Speed is fine but I strongly prefer if the round is slower so that I can fully understand the warranting of your contentions. I prefer slow, well warranted debates over fast, blippy debates. If you do spread, please slow down when you read your warrants.

Evidence Exchanges:

Please share me on the evidence exchanges -- selma.tabakovic@ahschool.com.

I do not like paraphrased evidence and would prefer that you read cut cards.

Progressive Debate Rounds:

I prefer adjudicating rounds that engage on substance within the resolution. Nonetheless, I am happy to adjudicate progressive rounds, particularly if there is an in-round abuse (ex: trigger warning/paraphrasing theory, etc). I am more comfortable adjudicating theory rounds compared to K rounds. I will adjudicate progressive rounds purely off of the flow, so please make sure all responses or basic assumptions are on the flow. If you run theory, please clearly explain your link. For Ks, please clearly explain how the alternative is worse and how voting pro solves.

Mahadev Tagadur Denmark High School

Bia Takata Regis High School

Lauro Takata Early Scholars

Hui Tang Thomas S. Wootton HS

Arman Tendulkar Bergen Debate Club

Last changed on Mon February 19, 2024 at 7:17 AM EDT

Don't call developing countries "third world countries". I'll knock speaker points off.

Also I don't flow cross.

arman.tendulkar@tufts.edu

FB messenger: Arman Tendulkar

Conflicts: Newton South, BCDC

Hello. My name is Arman Tendulkar, I competed on the Public Forum National Circuit from 2018-2022 for Newton South High School.

First and foremost I consider myself a tech over truth judge, but will interfere in instances of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or any other issues that compromise the safety of an individual in the round.

There is a lot more stuff later in my paradigm, but genuinely the most important thing for me is weighing. I don’t care if you’re winning 80 pieces of offense if it’s not weighed against your opponents 1 piece of offense there is a chance I will vote for them.

Now for the actual stuff:

Rebuttal:

I can flow speed and will accept a max of 250-300 words. If you are within this threshold, please send a doc because I really don’t want to miss responses that could be key for the backhalf of the round.

Dumping is ok, only if you actually know how to do it. I don’t want to hear a team put 14 turns on a contention if none of them are weighed, impacted, and have an implication. I expect every offensive response to have an impact and piece of weighing associated with it and every response in general to have a clear implication. I don’t want to be doing the work for you

Please don’t be a doc bot :((( I know PF kind of took a turn for the worse when we went online, but I miss the days when kids would just bring up a piece of paper and give an eloquent rebuttal off the dome. That being said I won’t pick you up/drop you for using a doc but it might impact speaker points if you don’t look up once during rebuttal.

Offensive overviews are fine, but please don’t be abusive and just read an entirely new contention as an offensive overview, it should have a link into the actual case.

2nd Rebuttal:

Don’t go for everything. I mean do it if you want but it isn’t strategic at all. I think choosing 1-2 arguments is always best, and collapsing in rebuttal is a great way to ensure a ballot win.

Offense must be frontline in rebuttal, defense doesn’t have to be frontlined but if you collapse in 2nd rebuttal I think frontlining the defense is also strategic

Defense is not sticky, summaries are three minutes now so there aren’t any excuses

Please weigh, even if you haven’t collapsed yet, weighing is so beautiful

Summary:

Extensions for me are the most important part of summary. Too many times I see debaters just fake extend the link without telling me the story properly. If your extension isn’t warranted correctly then there is a high chance I just won’t vote for you. I’m a very tired person and chances are I’m mentally exhuasted during the first half of the round, that is why I’m counting on you to give me a great extension in the backhalf so I can properly understand what your argument is.

Signpost please, I’ve seen and given some really wack summaries, but as long as you sign post I couldn’t care less what your order is. Don’t just say “onto our first argument” say “onto our first argument about ______ “

Final Focus:

Should basically be summary but more condensed, extend, frontline, weigh etc…

Final Focus is too late for new pieces of weighing unless it’s metaweighing. Metaweighing is great and I hope everyone utilizes it. Don't really flow it.

Weighing:

I talk about this a lot but let’s get more specific

Short-circuits and pre-reqs can and will win you rounds. When executed correctly they are amazing and I will be very happy if you bring them up.

Probability is not weighing: if you are winning the link you have 100% probability in the vacuum of the debate round

If I have to vote on strength of link or strength of impact weighing I will shed internal tears. That being said, you can make them if you really want, but supplement them with better weighing mechanisms.

Metaweighing, please, do it. Please.

Progressive Debate:

I hate theory, unless it's an actual abuse, it's an autodrop. I don't consider disclo to be real theory, paraphrase is dumb as well(unless they actually miscut the ev), most theory I hate, but ask before if you want to run it.

Tricks I will evaluate only against 3rd-4th year debaters, and never against SV framing or identity Ks

I really really really don't like Ks.

Framing:

Don’t be disrespectful when responding to it. These are serious issues that people care about

I don’t really like the respond in second case stuff, so if your opponents give me any response that is at all applicable for why they shouldn’t have to respond in second case I will default to not having to respond (ie time skew, education, fairness)

Please give warrants for why your framing is important. Many debaters think they can just assert a framing without giving reasons for why they particular framing is unique/ important. Please have good reasons.

Extra stuff:

I’m hearing impaired so please speak loudly, it helps you.

If you have any personal issues that impair your debating abilities in round, please let me know. I don’t want to vote against you for anything that is out of your control

I noted this at the top, but sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or anything that hurts debater’s safety will lead to an automatic loss.

If you can go the entire round without using your computer once, I will automatically give you a 30

Pulling up your evidence fast makes me happy

Tell me to call evidence, and I will. If there are competing pieces of evidence that isn’t resolved in the round I’ll call for them and evaluate them on my own terms. So it’s better to tell me why to prefer your evidence.

Post-rounding is dumb. I already submitted my ballot. If they are genuine questions, go ahead and ask.

Have fun. Debate was amazing for me because of the people I met, not the rounds I won so please please have fun. If you crack jokes, or mess around in round you won’t be negatively impacted, unless ofc it causes a serious disruption.

Feriel Terras Hire

Sunthar Tharma North Allegheny

Johnny Thompson Hire None

Megan Tian Hire

Norman Tillero Sequoyah High School

Tameshia Tomlinson Pompano Beach High School

Gabrielle Torres The Masters School

Roger Travis Milton Academy

Himanshu Tripathi Livingston High School

George Tsao Temple City High School None

Aditya Tummala Hire

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 6:13 AM CDT

Debated both Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas for Brookings High School (South Dakota, so traditional circuit) - also competed in FX, Congress, and Inform

Public Forum: Please clash. Please. I beg. I want real clash and solid, logical reasoning supported by quality extensions of advice that comprise the case. I don't consider K's and counterplans in PF. Also, please signpost well, not just case but rebuttal, summary, and final focus as well. Weigh all of your impacts and tell me the reasons why I should vote for your side.

Don't lie/falsify/make up/bs/misconstrue etc. evidence. It doesn't help you and you'll just lose the round. If you think your opponent did something shady, explain well what they did and why it's really bad. If you falsely accuse someone of lying, things will not end well for you either :)

Speak well and have good-quality arguments. Quality over quantity always. I will always weigh 1 really good argument over 10 horrible ones.

Lincoln Douglas: Have a reasonable Value and Criterion--value debate is pretty inconsequential in most cases (sometimes it matters but not often), so make sure you have a clear criterion. Just make sure that if it is really unique, it isn't abusive and can be understood well. Reluctantly, you can run K's, counterplans, disads, etc. but make sure you explain them really clearly and well. Explain philosophical arguments/connections well and clearly.

May be controversial, but if you're a good debater, I don't think you need to spread. I can handle decent speed, however, but I would always lean toward quality over quantity. On a scale of 1-10 for speed, I'm probably around 7ish.

__________________________________________

Other I.e's: If I'm judging you in IX, Congress, or even inform, then you're in luck! I actually pay attention to your arguments, so even if you talk like Obama or something but you make horrible points, you're not winning.

If I have to judge you in something else, may God help you.

Teresa Uthurralt Stuyvesant High School

Sierra Valdez Hire

Jack Valentino Success Academy HSLA-HARLEM

Madhav Vasanthavada Ridge High School None

Ajith Vasudevan Newton South High School

Uma Venkat East Ridge High School

Rajiv Verma Ivy Bridge Academy None

Prisilla Villalobos Success Academy East Flatbush

Professional Experience: For more than ten years, I studied criminal justice and received undergraduate degrees in criminal justice, criminology, and dispute resolution. I earned a Master's degree in Human Rights Law from John Jay College of Criminal Justice and over 5 years of professional experience in legal research, argumentative writing, and debate in criminal courtrooms (arraignments, trials and hearings). Since September, 2023, I have been a coach and judge in PF.

Debate Strategy: It is critical that the argument structure flow smoothly and follow a framework that is clearly topical. If a team drops their argument in multiple speeches and the opposing team fails to notice, emphasize it and explain why it is important, I will not intervene and consider it an offense against you because it is critical for debaters to flow and discredit their opponent's arguments. Card dumping should be avoided. You should be able to explain your own theories with cards as evidentiary support for your theories, as opposed to having an argument that was solely cut from cards. Lastly, I will provide detailed verbal feedback and extensive written feedback.

Technical preferences: Keep track of your own prep time. Standing or sitting during rounds is up to the discretion of the speaker. Medium speed is acceptable, but voice projection must be good and articulation needs to be clear (avoid spreading). Conceding time is only a good strategy when the argument is strong; otherwise, it can be extremely harmful for your argument. It is important for debaters to demonstrate good time management. However, if a question is asked during the CF and GCF rounds, I will allow scholars to finish their sentences should the timer interrupt. I award speakers points for confidence and sportsmanship. Be cool, calm, and respectful throughout the rounds. However, I always appreciate humor and wit.

If you are doing an email chain, you may add me : Prisilla.Villalobos@saschools.org

Good luck!

Umang Vinayaka Hire

Montine Vona-Pergola Newsome High School

Nicole Vournazos Lexington HS

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 7:25 AM EDT

I was in LD and state-wide extemp debate at Newtown High School (2006-2008); I've also judged tournaments off and on throughout my college and working years (2010+).

On speed (slow please): I used to speak fairly quickly in my own rounds, but in the real-world the slow spread, speaking slowly, or great word economy will help you in your own careers long-term. You will likely need to persuade people higher up the ladder or others (e.g. in college/job interviews) down the road: this work requires clarity and persuasion. Generally speed at -2X. I'll flow throughout the round.

On structure:

Don't want to use a value/vc framework (LD)? Fine. Want to have a ton of a priori arguments, underviews, overviews etc.. No worries. Give me a heads up on what you're using and how I should evaluate it if you're doing anything that's not a value/vc f/w.
I like when you're creative and throw in interesting arguments that make me think; use whatever technical terms you want but I need you to explain what they mean to you etc.
Always a fan of weighing. Do the work and tell me how I should evaluate the round :). Looking for multiple voting issuses.
If someone is making arguments that seem silly and unlikely, I need to hear specficially why they are silly and unlikely.

A bit more..

Looking for things like sign posting (tell me where you are going e.g. opponent contention 1), enumerating (numbering) your arguments, weighing (also why your weighing is better than your opponents or why I prefer yours), talking about the argument that was dropped or why you're extending through something etc.
Don't forget to breathe and take a chance to practice some voice inflection when making an argument.
Try hard to use plain language: the ability to translate more technical terms into easy-to-understand language is key.
If you’re extending something, briefly summarize the extension (try hard for less blippy extensions while balancing being succinct).

On cards: When reading off cards, I'm looking for some synthesis e.g. (1) what is this person saying (2) why does it help your argument. I still see cards that have no actual evidence e.g. x person says Y; if your opponent goes in and says no warrant, there's not much I can do.

On final arguments: Again add that synthesis in. Show me where you extended an argument that was unresponded to and crystalize your main points. I can go do the work for you (it may not be what you like), but it's helpful as a speaker when you do it for me (summarize the round and tell me why you win). Give me multiple places to vote on via number (#1, #2, #3) even if we've collapsed issues (I won X of arg, I've turned their arg and it's better/worse in my world -- don't forget to generally mention oh and btw they aren't winning their offense).

On civility: Be kind. Having a great argument and being even-keeled in the process is great -- it makes for a persuasive speaker IMHO. Looking for CCC: calm, cool, and collected (though spirited debate is of course welcome).

Please do not shout at me or your opponent during the round. Please use the speaking voice you use every day when at school or talking to friends. There's no need to shout in the round for me to understand what you are saying. Thank you!

Tanay Vysyaraju Montville

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 7:41 AM EDT

Montville Highschool 23'

Rutgers University 27'

Hey, im Tanay. I debated for 4 years in PF, Parli and LD, and won the NJ state tournament for parli junior and senior year and qualified to Parli TOCs in my senior year.

Scroll down if your in PF.

Parli:

I think can get really muddled, to you have to make it clear to me as to why you win. I want a clear collapse in the last speech, and please WEIGH. impact comparison will win or lose rounds. Weighing ideally should start in the second speech, last is fine but doing it earlier allows for more contextualization in the back half. Always do meta weighing, just saying we outweigh on probability or something is not enough if your opp is doing contextual meta weighing of why scope outweighs probability. Make it clear to me as to WHY YOU WIN.

Make sure to make clear definitions in the beginning of the round to ensure a clear debate into later speeches. I'll mostly listen to any argument, as long as it isn't abhorrently abusive. Lastly, I enjoy when debaters go top down in their rebuttals and have some sort of signposts to me as to where I should be on the flow.

POIs - I expect a team to take at least 2 POIs per round. Raising your hand is enough to signal your question, competitors should be paying attention to any requests.

POOs - I'll take them into consideration, but if I come to conclusion right away I'll let you know. Otherwise I'll let you know of my decision in my RFD.

For the rest of the conventions, look to the live doc for tournament specific preferences.

PF:

My general judging preferences in PF don't change much from parli but i'll list some stuff that could be important below:

ALWAYS WEIGH!! - This is not just for between straight impacts but also goes for when deliniating between what impact calc is more important. You should be doing that meta weighing for me throughout the round, e.g, timeframe ows magnitude for xyz reasons.

Collapsing should ideally start in rebuttal.

Don't go overkill on LBL especially in the back half of the round, there should be geninue world comparision. This means later speeches should prioritize judge instruction and telling me how to vote instead of just responding to everything they said. If all I have is just a bunch of LBL on my flow and 0 instruction of what I should prioritize or whats the highest layer, do not expect speaks to be high.

I do not think defense is sticky

Tech > truth, but if a argument is probably false the brightline for response is much lower compared to a arg that may be more true/more warranted.

Don't really like progressive arguments in PF. If you're spreading and i cannot understand what you're saying, theres a greater chance things do not go in your favor.

Speaks will start at 29 and either go up or down depending on what happens in the round. Good weighing, collapsing, and just instruction all go a long way in increasing your speaks.

Email: tanayv05@gmail.com

Josh Wachman Newton South High School

Fraser Wallace BASIS International School Nanjing

Bingquan Wang Boston Latin Middle School

Fred Wang Horace Greeley HS

Jessie Wang Hire

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 3:13 AM EDT

Hi! I'm Jessie! I'm a senior at Boston Latin, and I did PF for three years.

I would like to say I'm in between a tech judge and a lay judge. I believe debate should be accessible but I also think I can handle more complex arguments.

Please collapse in final focus + signpost for speeches!

In terms of spreading, as long you're not straight-up spitting bars, I think I can follow. Just be careful that you enunciate. I will not flow "regeturnnyawjfnvoiwmyopponentsarewrongbecadbeobfjlnjn".

I tend to judge tech over truth because that's how debate is supposed to be but I also will not let teams win on unclear arguments. If I don't get it, I'm not counting it.

Impacts need to have a clear link. I value you actually explaining it to me as opposed to you citing some random card. If you are reading block after block during rebuttal, it is harder to follow than if you give a logical step-by-step description. It is also painfully obvious why you are just reading someone else's case that you do not understand. That being said, I do like seeing teams back up their explanations with professional research, so definitely have cards and bring only the important ones back later in the round.

Being offensive or rude is a big no-no for me (especially during crossfire, if you do not respect your opponents or let them speak, I will dock speaks).

If you say harmful things that are racist, sexist, or discriminatory in general, I will dock your speaks to a minimum, even if you do all of the bonuses mentioned below.

I expect everyone to keep track of their time and their opponents' time. If you go over time, I'm going to stop flowing. After twenty seconds over, I'm going to stop you because you should have managed your time ,and it's not fair to everyone.

I am not opposed to skipping grand-cross if everyone is okay with it, just to save time.

I do not like theory. At all. Please debate about the topic, not the debaters themselves. I'm also unfamiliar with the concept. But, if you run it, I will try to follow it the best I can. No guarantees, though.

Crossfire, in general, I do not flow or pay attention to. You're supposed to be poking holes in your opponent's case and getting to better understand it. Points and arguments should be made IN SPEECHES.

WEIGHING IS SO IMPORTANT. PLEASE explain why I should care about something. It's the basics of persuasion. Not only should you explain why your issue is important, but you should also mention why your opponents' impacts are less important.

My email is wangjessie2006@gmail.com.

SPEAKER POINTS:

+0.5 speaks if you give a roadmap in a British accent, make a pun, wink at me randomly during final focus, eat something during prep, say "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, we are gathered here today to ____" before a speech, pay a compliment to your opponents after their speech, or slow-clap after the round.

Please mind that these bonuses will not get you to a 30. The max you can get from these is a 29.5.

Good luck! Please remember that the outcome of a round is dependent on the opinion of a single biased person on a given day. It does not mean you are a bad debater.

Jianguo Wang Newton South High School

Miles Wang Hire None

Sophia Wang Hire

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 10:42 AM CDT

Email chain: sophiaw1128@gmail.com

I did PF for four years, coached since graduating

flay --------> me ----------------------> ultra tech policy judge

Wear whatever you want, speak from wherever you want, doesn't matter

Default framing util, default weighing is highest mag first, presume first

Strike Guide:

Link spamming (10> in a case) and dumping frivolous progressive args will only hurt you

Trigger warnings are mandatory on sensitive/graphic content. Don't do anything violent/exclusionary. Clear and obvious violations to the average person that are pointed out = L20. Even if it's not pointed out you're probably not getting higher than a 25

Tech:

I judge substance better than I judge prog, keep that in mind, that being said -

Things that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Stock Ks, most frameworks ran in pf

Theory:

CI>R, DTA, no RVIs, text by default but up for debate

Should be read immediately after violation, depending on the situation (experience level, impromptu theory) I am OK with forgetting to extend interp or violation if there are no responses on it. Standards and voters need to be in every speech.

In messy theory debates with multiple shells involved. You must weigh in order to prevent me from intervening.

You can paraphrase or not disclose as long as you respond well to their respective shells. I don't mandate either nor am I biased towards those particular standards. I will also evaluate things like theory bad if you win it on the flow.

Important: I will judge Ks using the mechanisms that doing pf has given me. Do not expect me to understand policy jargon or know how to implicate your literature properly. You know your own K best, so if you're going to real Ks please spend enough time telling me exactly how you want me to evaluate it. Otherwise it'll just be an uninformed ballot.

I am most familiar with stock Ks: fem, cap/sec etc, so if you're reading more niche K make sure to be extra diligent about implicating it.

Shells almost always uplayers the K, so you need to read counterinterp of respond to shells read, just weighing may not be enough (again depends on the K)

Things that I am not familiar with:

T, Tricks, High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy

pls no

Speed:

Send doc

Speaks:

Speaks are given based on strategy/content instead of rhetoric/fluency. I give 30s. My baseline is 28. I rarely go below that.

Speeches:

Constructive:

Just be clear, I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted

Rebuttals:

If you want to concede defense to kick out of turns on your case, or read your own defense on your own case to kick those turns (sketch, but fine), you need to do it immediately after the opposing speech which made those turns. Second rebuttal should frontline. if your opponents bring up weighing in first rebuttal it is okay to not address it until summary. I don't evaluate "no warrant" responses unless you give me counter-warranting, link weighing, or some degree of implication.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky and needs to be in every speech. That being said, the extent to which I'll tolerate blippy extensions is directly inverse to how much ink your opponent puts on said thing you're extending. At the minimum, I need link + Impact + implication.

Final Focus:

Be smart with ff strategy, easiest way to win me over as a judge.

Interact, weigh, go for the right things

Feel free to postround, it is good and educational. But please only do so if the round ends before 10pm, otherwise just email me

Yubao Wang Newton South High School

Kyle Watkins Ridge High School

Last changed on Sat May 25, 2024 at 5:19 AM EDT

Hi, I’m Kyle (he/him/his)

BACKGROUND

I currently coach for Ridge High School and competed extensively in speech as a student there. I coach both speech and PF, meaning I emphasize both good delivery/style as well as clear argumentation.

PUBLIC FORUM:

Add me to the email chain or, create the Google Doc: kwatkins@bernardsboe.com

Either way, do this before round if possible.

Ask me questions post-round/over email if you want!! I'm happy to answer anything

GENERAL

I will flow your arguments as long as you are clearly spoken, but I heavily encourage considering me more on the lay side of debate.

I won't vote for something I don't understand/wasn't well extended

Clear weighing/voters are incredible :)

Use ff to write my ballot

If you’re speaking too fast you run the risk of me losing stuff, and I won’t knock your opponent for missing stuff cause you tried to fit too much into your case.

I love strong narratives and cohesion of arguments — simply saying “extend this” or “extend that” doesn’t explain anything to me.

All arguments should have clear warrants and impacts.

IN ROUND

Signposting is so important–y’all all want to get through a ton of content, but it doesn’t matter if I have to waste my limited brain cells trying to understand how what you said interacts with your case.

Don’t be rude? The bar is low.

Take a breath before you speak! Don’t forget how incredible and unique y’all are for the amount of work you put into this activity, and the breadth of knowledge you have. Remember, I always want to vote for you, so you have no reason to be nervous.

IMPACTS

I wanted to make a whole section for this cause I think it’s so important

Timeframe, Magnitude, Probability

How your impacts relate to your opponent's impacts

How these impacts actually happen, the full story behind them, paint a picture. ELI5

CROSS

In crossfire, don’t ask questions with long preambles that come across as you trying to have more speech time.

I don’t flow cross, but you need to extend contradictions your opponents say for me to consider it.

RULES

Do not misconstrue evidence — if you do have an issue with your opponents’ evidence, please bring it up in the round and contact tab accordingly.

Read content warnings about potentially triggering content. If you don’t like content warnings, bummer. Content warnings allow speech & debate to be inclusive.

If you have spectators from your team, I fully expect your team members to be off their technology and not communicating with you. If you’re cheating in any way, you lose the debate and get to chat with tab.

FINAL FOCUS

Gosh I love final focus.

This is your time to explain voter’s issues, weigh on the valuable args in the round, and overall just write your own ballot. FF is time for your persuasion to shine, and my favorite speech in PF :)

SPEAKS

I believe speaks are important, and the points I give you relate to what I feel you should take away from my judging.

30: Lovely speaking, no notes.

28-29.5: Good stuff, minor issues or stumbles, mostly I vary here based on comparison in round.

27.5: You have work to do on your speaking style, and I would encourage you to record yourself speaking to recognize it.

27: You have lots of work to do on your speaking style, and I would heavily encourage you to record yourself speaking to recognize it.

26.5: I felt you said something disrespectful or behaved disrespectfully in round.

26 and below: You’re gonna hear from tab.

ARE YOU IN NOVICE? READ THIS:

Time yourself. When you run out of time, finish your sentence gracefully, then stop speaking.
I will also time you. When you run out of time, I will silently stop taking notes on my flow and wait for you to finish. I will cut you off if you are egregiously over time. If I cut you off, it means I didn't listen to anything you said for the last 30-60 seconds.

I love seeing people new to debate, so I’m never going to mark you down if you don’t use conventional debate jargon, break conventional norms from inexperience, etc. I will still fairly judge, and novice-ness is no loophole to missed arguments and the like.

Scott Wiersman Lumos Debate Institute (MS)

Toby Winick American Heritage Broward MS

Nicole Wintring Desert Vista High School

Ken Wu Acton-Boxborough Regional High School

Rosa Wu Lumos Debate Institute (MS)

Nancy Wurzman Cherokee Trail High School

Weiyao Xiao Newton South High School

Maria Xu Hire

Shan Yang Potomac Debate Academy

Oguz Yildiz Thomas Edison EnergySmart Charter School

Noah Yoon Alliance Academy

Chris Young Lincoln-Sudbury Regional HS

Yanbing Yu Bergen Debate Club

Susan Zana Mountain Brook High School

Zainab Zarnish Hire

Elizabeth Zevallos Concord Carlisle High School

Biao Zhang Cary Academy

Cindy Zhang Omega Speech and Debate

Dave Zhang Omega Speech and Debate

Janet Zhang River Hill High School

Jianbin Zhang Omega Speech and Debate

Jingmei Zhang Dulles High School

Justin Zhang Seven Lakes High School

Stephen Zhang Newton North None

Xiaoyu Zhang RD Independent

YING ZHANG Natick High School

Austin Zhao The Awty International School

Irene Zhao Sidwell

Jiany Zhou Hire

Login to Tabroom

Harvard National Speech and Debate Tournament

2024 — Cambridge, MA/US

PF (In-Person Divisions) Paradigm List

Judges