Tabroom.com

Harvard National Speech and Debate Tournament

2024 — Cambridge, MA/US

PF (Online Divisions) Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Hassana Maimako Abdullahi Hire

Last changed on Tue March 12, 2024 at 8:42 PM UTC

Hello there,

My name is Hassana I am a regular debater and public speaker in my fifth year of judging currently employing my vast speaking and judging experience to judge speech and debate. I have gathered ample experience judging different speech and debate formats including British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), Congress, CX, LD, Extemp, Impromptu.

Email address: rahmatmaimako09@gmail.com

Conflicts: I do not have any.

PERSONAL NOTE:

When you encounter me in a room, please note that I hold in high regard, positive, fair, equitable and proper engagements during discussions and cross engagements. I appreciate debaters who check out all the boxes of expectations including role fulfillment, efficient engagements of debate burdens, contentions and clashes and equitable and effective engagements to confrontations

Speed/ Rate of Delivery: I do a fast format. I'm okay with spreading in formats where it is standard practice (Policy and prog LD). I'll call "clear" or "slow" if you are being unclear or I can't keep up, which doesn't happen too often. If you spread, I appreciate it if you make it clear when one card ends and a new one begins (eg saying NEXT or AND between each card, going slower on tags, etc). I also appreciate when speeches are broken down in cases with technical languages given I consider myself an average intelligent voter

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

Delivery Style: While I agree style isn't a major factor on whether a team is winning I am huge on both valuing both the content of the arguments and how well teams mechanism to prove that argument stands in the round. Considering style plays a huge factor on how speeches fulfill certain burdens i.e structure of arguments ( Analysis, mechanism to prove why that argument is true, CounterOpp where necessary, impact of the arguments, and weighing)

Impact stuff: Like most judges, I love it when the debaters in all formats do impact calculus and explain why their impacts matter more under their framework. When this doesn't happen, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and scoop and using reversibility and timeframe as tiebreakers. I’m open to voting on impact turns.

Judging of previous rounds most argumentation I consider persuasive are based on how well the analysis are proven and able to stand to well constructed responses and if there is a high impact to that contention being generated at the end of the contention

In-round Conduct : I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.

Best of luck.

Oluwatobiloba Adebara GE-Elite

Neha Ajmera Hire

Samuel Adeyemi Ayodele Hire

Putri Azzahra Hire

Last changed on Fri February 9, 2024 at 2:55 PM WIB

Debate Philosophy:

I approach debates with a focus on flowing arguments and evaluating them based on the flow. While I prioritize technical arguments over truth, I do expect clear and logical communication from debaters. Clarity of thought and logic is paramount, and I value well-warranted arguments over-reliance on evidence alone.

I weigh the claims by whether they are supported by two kinds of reasoning:

11. Truth: Why the claim is true.

22. Impact: Why this claim is important in the debate.

"Claims" apply to both constructive arguments and rebuttals, as I will weigh them side by side in clashes on my flow later. Providing examples or research findings doesn't necessarily mean your claim is true; you have to explain which part of the example/research can be applied to the argument, to explain why that example is important to the debate as a whole.

Weighing Arguments:

Debaters should focus on weighing their arguments and demonstrating why their impacts outweigh those of their opponents. This includes considering scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability, or employing metaweighing techniques. I appreciate clear roadmaps and signposting throughout the round to aid in organization.

Topic Relevance:

I prefer debates to stay on topic and avoid off-topic or theoretical arguments aimed at disqualifying the other team. Definitions by the government/affirmative team are allowed, but abuse of this privilege will be penalized.

Argument Evaluation:

Warranted arguments are crucial for winning my ballot. Unsubstantiated claims are difficult to vote on, especially when effectively rebutted by the opposing side. It's essential to be charitable to opponents' arguments and engage with the best version of their claims rather than strawmanning them.

Public Forum-Specific:

In Public Forum debates, I prioritize logical reasoning over reliance on evidence cards. Debaters should focus on identifying weaknesses in their opponents' link chains rather than reading from prepared blocks. Clash should be evident by the rebuttal speeches, and second rebuttals should address all offense or risk concessions.

Evidence and Email Chains:

I do not typically review evidence or participate in email chains. Debaters must convince me of their arguments without relying on my review of evidence. However, if requested, I may assess evidence for accuracy.

Praveen Bellamkonda Ivy Bridge Academy

Lucy Lu Cai Hire

Kattichka Cazeau VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 12:43 PM EDT

Pronouns: (she/her)

Preferred name: Kat

I would like to be on the email chain: cazeaupatricia@gmail.com

*****IF YOU READ/REFERENCE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT/VIOLENT CONTENT I AM NOT THE JUDGE FOR YOU.*****

Debated at Liberty, and I debated policy for 4 years in high school (shout out to Long Branch High!).

My credentials ig:

- 2021 NDT third team

- 2022 NDT First Round (TOP TEN YERRRR)

- First Liberty invite to the Kentucky Round Robin

- Long Branch High volunteer Policy Coach

- Judged Policy, LD, Parli, PF, and speech events

Kritiks:

I'm a black woman with an immigrant background. Do with that what you will.

If you're a K team, I'm a huge fan of K's! I'm familiar with: Cap K, Thoreau, Antiblackness, Afropess, Afrofuturism, Orientalism, Bataille, Nietzsche, Fem, Baudrillard, and I'm sure I'm missing others. Just bc I'm comfortable with these, don't be sure I'll know all of your buzz-words and theory. Explanations are good, detailed explanations are best.

If you win the following, you'll win the debate:

1.) Give me the Link. Just because I consider the truth doesn't mean that you could assert that the Aff is racist, sexist, neoliberal, or whatever without a specific link. If you can prove to me why the foundations of the Aff are suspect and make your impacts worse, you've done your job and the link debate is yours.

2.) Impact weighing. I need clash and impact comparison. Sure, tell me what your impact is and why it matters, but explain why it matters in relation to your opponent's impacts (ie: structural violence is happening now, extinction is far off. Immediacy outweighs).

3.) Alt explanation. I gotta know what it does. In explaining the Alt, you need to explain how it's different from the SQUO, and why a permutation wouldn't immediately resolve your impacts and the links. If you don't need to win the Alt, just gotta explain why not.

4.) Judge Instruction. Give it to be straight, what do you want me to do? What is my role in the discussion/in this competitive space? What are the implications of the ballot?

Do these things, and you're golden. :^)

K-Affs:

Do most of the same stuff as above, only difference is that you should have substantive answers to framework. Again, don't just assert that FW is sexist, racist, whatever WITHOUT a reason why. I jive with K-Affs, and I think performances could be powerful. Just make sure everything is done with a purpose.

Your counter-interpretation is the framing for my ballot as well as the model of debate you advocate for. I'll vote on any, esp if the other team drops it.

ROB's are muy importante in a framework debate.

I'm guilty of wildly-long overviews-- but for your sake pls no more than 2 minutes. Pls.

Policy, because I can't abandon my first love:

I love me some tasty DA's and CP's, as long as the internal link chain makes sense.

I'm sympathetic to Condo as an arg if it's 6+ off. Anything below that and you're on your own, my friend.

Impact turns are cool. I'll vote for anything as long as it isn't death/extinction good and structural violence/racism good.

Framework:

1.) FAIRNESS ISN'T AN IMPACT! It's an internal link to education.

2.) Clash is the most convincing impact to me.

3.) Predictability is sort of a toss-up. If you didn't prepare for Cap or other K's that you knew would come with the topic after the first few tournaments, that's on you. But I will vote for it if you tell me how predictability makes you all better debaters.

Please do not put me in any T or Theory debates. I can't do it.

***PF***

>Impact calc is MUY IMPORTANTE!!! Weigh between your and your opponent's impacts, please. Explain why you outweigh.

>Ask QUESTIONS in Cross-Fire! This is two-fold: 1. "[explains case]... what do you say to that?" isn't a question, and 2. Being POLITE when asking questions is key. Please don't bully the other team.

>Tell me how to write my ballot, and what you're going to win on in this debate.

>I'm a policy person so I don't see a problem with counterplans in PF. This being said, "This is PF, counterplans aren't allowed!" isn't an argument. Attack it instead.

>In addition, speed isn't a problem for me. But do recognize that if the other team makes it a voter, you have to justify your use of speed in that instance.

>And please, PLEASE, answer as many of the opponent's arguments WHILE extending your case. Chances are they didn't answer everything you said.

>Finally... have funsies. :^)

If you're racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, rude, or discriminatory in any way toward your partner or opponent, I will stop the round and your speaks are getting docked. Behaviors like that make the debate space less hospitable. And, yes, that includes extremely 'punking' the other team.

Rhetoric is a voter. If it frames the debate and it's a big enough deal to potentially ruin your debate experience, I'll vote on it.

HAVE FUN!

Gina Chen Eticko Debate Academy

Haidyn Christoffel HMDC Forensics Team

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 11:36 PM PDT

Hi there! I am the Assistant Director of Debate at Concordia University Irvine. My partner and I were 3rd at NPDA my senior year.

NPDA:

Kriticisms: I read a lot of Kriticisms as a competitor, but just because I might understand some of your lit base, does not mean I will do the work for you when it comes to evaluating the flow. Also, I might not understand your specific K, so please explain it and what it does in the alt and solvency clearly. I am not voting on arguments I do not understand. I also really like specific links on neg K's, as I think they can function as independent offense on the aff if done correctly. In regards to non-topical affirmatives, I would like to see some justification for rejecting the topic to show that your aff actually does something or sets a norm in the debate space.

Theory: I am not so sure how I feel about frivolous theory, as I feel that it literally defeats the entire point of theory in the first place, which is to preserve fairness and education in debate. Examples of frivolous theory I would most likely not vote on are (but not limited to): must pass texts in the speech (just do it after your speech or in flex) and disclosure (I don't know how that even works in parli). Otherwise, I enjoy a good theory debate! MG theory is cool, again, don't make it frivolous.I default to competing interps over reasonability if no voters tell me otherwise. Please be specific and give me a bright line if you would like me to evaluate a theory sheet using reasonability.

Case: Case debate is always fun. If this is what you are the most comfortable defending, go for it!

Speed: I am personally okay with speed. Please be clear. Please read important tags like all advocacies, ROB's, and interps twice or slow down so I make sure I have them flowed correctly. I will audibly slow or clear you if I cannot keep up. I would encourage you to do the same if you cannot keep up with your opponents and vise versa.

Impact calculus: Without impact calc, I feel that the round is infinitely harder for me to weigh. Please do this in the rebuttals, even if you collapse to theory. I will most likely default to valuing the highest magnitude impact if not told to weigh the round otherwise.

Lastly, please do not make morally reprehensible arguments.

LD:

I have no preferences other than I really would like to not have to evaluate disclosure theory (on the aff or neg). Otherwise, most of my parli paradigm can be applied here.

IPDA only:

My ballot will mainly be decided on the way arguments interact with each other rather than how well of a speaker the competitors are. I will not flow cross-ex, so if you want me to flow an argument, please make it in your speech. I think the definitions debate is the highest layer in the round, and I will evaluate that before I look to the other arguments. I enjoy strong impact calculus. So if the round permits, please tell me why your impacts matter the most and why I should care. I think sometimes burdens in IPDA become unclear. I think the aff should defend the topic, even if it is in some fun and creative way that I was not expecting. I think the neg's burden is to disprove the aff or offer reasons as to why the aff causes something bad to happen, don't just negate the topic alone.

Lastly, I think debate is a game and we can all gain something from every round. I want to encourage you all to be kind to one another and have fun with the event. Feel free to ask me any other questions in person! Good luck and have fun! :)

Beth Luzann Cole Hire

Last changed on Tue September 24, 2024 at 10:22 AM EDT

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

Speed: I can keep up with a quick-ish speed - enunciation is very important! Pre round I can do a "speed test" and let you know what I think of a participant's speech speed if anyone wants to. I think it is especially important to make sure cases are comprehensible. I look at speech docs if something only if evidence is questioned. I was never a super speed debater and didn’t encourage my students to speed. Please keep all this in mind if you normally utilize speedy delivery.

Theory: I am familiar with topicality and if other theory is introduced, I could probably understand it. (I also used to run hasty generalization but not sure if that’s still a thing or not.) Theory is best used when it’s pertinent to a round, not added for filler and needs to be well developed if I am expected to vote on it. That being said, I also give the team defending themselves against a theory shell quite a bit of latitude to do so; I look more at the big picture of theory vs. arguing a dropped point or 2 and trying to pull it through to win.

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

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

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

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

Priscila Contreras Hire

Julian Crown Hire

Bruce Evans Jonesboro

Meredith Gao BC Academy

Alan Guo Cicero Project

Krish Haria Speech and Debate India Middle School

Meenal Haria Speech and Debate India Middle School

David Herrera Global Leaders Academy

Ian Hwang BC Academy

Idris Ibrahim GE-Elite

Last changed on Sun February 18, 2024 at 4:38 PM UTC

Hello there!

My name is Idris Ibrahim, and my judging career which spans for over four years has seen me muster up a significant amount of experience in a wide range of debate formats/styles such as; the British Parliamentary Format, World Schools Format, World Scholars Format, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Asian Parliamentary, and Speech Events.

Judging Pattern:

I always approach any debate I'm about to judge as a globally informed citizen, whilst making sure I toss any conceivable personal biases I may have about a topic aside. This means that to convince me in a debate room you must make sure your arguments are credibly realistic and persuasive within the scope of the debate. A couple of things to bear in mind about my judging pattern -

• State your contentions/arguments clearly and back them up with enough analysis to prove your case.

• Make sure you're creating a fair means of engagement towards your opposition. This means that I do not expect you to just present your contentions in a vacuum and expect them to win - I also expect that you challenge the contentions of the opposition and create comparatives to show why your contentions are superior.

• Ensure you highlight your arguments in a well-organized structure - I do not expect that in the middle of contention A, you then transition to contention B abruptly. Take your time to fully explain your contentions while also being time-conscious.

• Role fulfilment is also important. So make sure you fulfil your roles perfectly.

• For Speech Events - I appreciate absolute creativity during your presentation. I expect that you use all that is within your means to execute whichever role you're taking on in whatever speech event I am judging you in. I take notes of your eye contact, body language, energy, and expressions while speaking.

Side Notes:

• I have a slight preference for medium-paced speeches. This does not however mean that if you're naturally a pacy speaker, you're automatically disadvantaged when I'm judging you. I would give your speech equal attention and assessment on a meritocratic basis regardless of how fast you speak, but if you can, just take deep breaths as you present your speech rather than zapping through.

• I admire it when competitors respect, value, and have a deep sense of mutual understanding for each other during rounds. This means I totally detest irritable attitudes such as rudeness, hostility, and intolerance. Kindly be on your best behaviour and be very conscious of how you interact with your co - competitors.

Whenever you come across me in a debate room, I can guarantee you quality judging and the most accurate feedback (either written or orally) , I also hope that in my little way, I contribute towards the growth of your speaking journey.

Aman Jha Hire

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

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm What Stands Out to Me :

Strong debates go beyond surface-level arguments and delve into the reasoning behind evidence. I appreciate when debaters break down their opponents’ evidence—whether by highlighting contradictions, exposing overgeneralizations or overly specific claims, or pointing out when it lacks proper reasoning. Instead of a simple “my evidence beats theirs” approach, show me why their evidence is flawed. This deeper level of analysis is persuasive and increases your chances of winning

Framework discussions are another key area. A full framework debate isn’t always necessary, especially if both sides’ impacts align or if the frameworks lead to the same outcomes. However, when you engage in framework debate, focus on the parts that truly matter and explain how they shape my evaluation of the round. Remember, conceding your opponent’s framework doesn’t automatically mean you lose—what matters is how you use it to frame the impacts in the round.

Consistency matters just as much. If your case relies on a philosophical argument, don’t shy away from defending its implications—even if they’re uncomfortable. For instance, if someone challenges utilitarianism for prioritizing the majority over the minority, defend that stance rather than retreating. Similarly, if you argue against consequentialism by claiming predictions are unreliable, don’t then cite studies based on predictive claims. Stay committed to your position, and I’ll take it more seriously.

Analogies are a tool I wish more debaters used. They can clarify your arguments, point out flaws in your opponent’s reasoning, or make your case more relatable. A well-crafted analogy not only helps me understand your position but also makes your arguments more compelling.

Finally, impact weighing is often what separates a clear win from a close round. Instead of broad statements like “this outweighs everything,” dive into specifics—explain why one impact is more significant than another. If you can tie your weighing directly to the framework, even better. Specific, nuanced weighing gives me the clarity I need to make a decision.

I prefer a slower, more deliberate style of debate. Clear and effective communication is essential, and a slower pace allows for better persuasion and stronger arguments. If you choose to speak quickly, it’s on you to ensure that I can follow along. If I miss something because it wasn’t clear, I won’t evaluate it.

Regarding prep time, I’m not a fan of flex prep.

Cross-examination exists for a reason, so save your questions for that time. You can ask for evidence during prep, but clarification questions should wait for

CX : Argumentation Preferences I’m not a fan of policy-style debates in LD. If your case revolves around an intricate policy plan with speculative links leading to improbable extinction scenarios, it’s going to lose me. Stick to debating the resolution instead of inventing new ones. If you’re more interested in policy debate, consider competing in that format. Evidence ethics is something I take very seriously. Misrepresenting evidence or cutting cards dishonestly undermines the debate and ruins the experience for everyone. If I catch it, I will intervene—even if no one points it out in the round.

When it comes to kritiks, I’m willing to evaluate them, but there are conditions. For pre-fiat kritiks, you need a clear role of the ballot and specific links to the affirmative’s performance in the round. Vague links or underdeveloped alternatives won’t convince me.

Post-fiat kritiks are fine, but I still expect well-developed alternatives and clear warrants. Topicality and theory arguments are acceptable, but they need to be well-warranted and directly impacted. I favor reasonability over strict interpretations and believe theory should only address truly abusive cases—not be used as a strategic tactic.

Public Forum Debate Paradigm

How I Evaluate PF In Public Forum,

I default to an “on-balance” standard for comparing impacts. If you introduce a framework, make sure to explain why it’s relevant and how it shapes my evaluation.

A simple assertion without justification won’t carry much weight. Topicality arguments are fine, but I’ll only consider the impact of “ignore the argument,” not “drop the team.”

Similarly, I’m not interested in theory arguments in Public Forum and won’t vote on them.

Arguments to Avoid Certain arguments don’t belong in Public Forum. Counterplans, kritiks, or anything relying on fiat are out of place in this format. Both sides should focus on fulfilling their equal burdens of proof without resorting to overly technical debate styles Judging Philosophy Public Forum is designed to be accessible and straightforward. Because of this, I’m more willing to step in if I feel an argument is unfair or goes against the spirit of the format.

Keep your arguments clear, focused, and appropriate for PF, and you’ll be in a much better position to win.

So, my priorities as a judge are clarity, consistency, and strategic argumentation. If you focus on these elements, you’ll make it easier for me to evaluate the round and increase your chances of earning my ballot.

GG Jones VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Deepti Kapoor The Golden State Academy None

Austin Kelachukwu VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Charles Kishi VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Martin Klein Hire

Mona Kothari Speech and Debate India Middle School

Gaurav kr Hire

hoangtien la BASIS Peoria

Unnati Lalka Speech and Debate India Middle School

Daniel Lee Honor Academy

Arjun Lingala Hire

Last changed on Thu February 8, 2024 at 11:55 AM EDT

Please no more disclosure for digi toc

Hey my name is Arjun, I did PF and CX at Chelmsford High School. I am currently a sophmore at UMass Amherst.

Tech > Truth

Put me on the email chain: junyyyhere@gmail.com

Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, will NOT be tolerated, depending on what you say its a huge deduction in speaks and/or there's a good chance I drop you.

Run what u want, all substance is fine I can deal with whatever u throw at me even if i don't like it unless its discriminatory

I'll only intervene on two occasions

1. Racism/sexism/etc any other problematic things occur

2. Evidence issues. Depending on how bad it is, I will drop the argument and possibly the debater

Outside of what I just said above, for PF or CX or whatever event it is, I won't intervene on any level regardless of the argument you run

Speaks

I inflate them a lot because they're super subjective and shouldn't matter too much, usually 28s or 29s, but if you are in the bubble, just let me know and you get 30s.

Being aggressive/rude is fine to a level, being insulting means I drop speaks though

Bringing food is good, auto 30's, preferably candy or something idk

Cut cards/disclosure means +1 speaks

Case

idc what you do here, read some advantages or disadvantages or read theory or a k or respond to ur opps case in second constructive it's all up to you

If you're gonna read framing, please do it in the 1ac/1nc. If you do it in rebuttal then I'm not gonna stop your opps from reading an off against said framing in rebuttal. Just makes it much easier for everyone if you read framing in constructive.

Rebuttal

First rebuttal can read disads/advantages but please don't just contention dump, make it somewhat responsive.

Second rebuttal has to respond to all turns and defense or its 100% conceded, ik half of y'all read disads as huge turns and just don't implicate so idc anymore, just make sure u be somewhat responsive with ur "turns".

Weighing can start here too, it's always nice when that happens

Summary

You can go for 1 or 3 things, doesn't matter to me. My personal advice is collapse, stop extending 30 things, saves us all time and helps you win easier. Extend properly. I don't need word for word extensions of ur card, just what ur arg is, it shld be like 15-20 seconds max imo

First summary doesn't have to weigh, second summary needs to weigh, no new weighing in 2ff

Final Focus

New weighing in 1ff is fine, don't go over tho try to do it if u can in summary, just the basics, no new stuff, extend, weigh, all that and same with 2ff

CX
I don't really care too much about it i will be paying attention

Also, evidence comparison is key. And for PF, i'm not talking about saying "hey my author says this warrant" I mean comparing authors. Policy/LD does it way more and doing it in PF would make it much easier to win. I guarantee you, if your opponents have evidence about Russia escalation from from a part-time blogger and you have evidence from an experienced IR scholar and you explain this, I am probably going to prefer your evidence. Do evidence comparison with warrants and authors. Authors matter just as much, if not more than warrants.

Progressive

Please never read progressive stuff on a novice/person who won't know how to interact, it just makes the whole debate boring, uncomfortable, and tiring to judge and debate for all sides. If there's a violation, just bring it up in paragraph form and i'll evaluate it.

My style in pf is usually substance sometimes a k here or there if i think it strategic or theory if it works, no k affs. My policy strat on aff is just a policy aff, on the neg its like everything, mix of whatever works, but i usually go for cps/das, the occasional k if its clean, sometimes t based on the aff/round. Even though a lot of your stuff might not line up with mine, I probably understand good amount of it, other than super complicated k/k aff lit, so don't be afraid to run what you want, just warrant it out and explain it.

CPs- Not allowed in pf, BUT i like a good cp debate, its fun, if u wanna run it in pf then go for it. U can make the argument its not allowed but that can be answered by its educational, im up for anything, do whatever.

K's- Fine with some k's and have experience with the usual (cap, setcol, sec, abolition, biopower, semiocap, etc) but more complicated stuff and just k's in general need to be explained in round. i'm not voting off what I know about the k already im voting off what you say. I don't want jargon spam even if i know the argument, i want explanations of it so there's a good debate on it that i can judge. K rounds are overall fine just know what you are running and EXPLAIN THE LINKS CLEARLY, like HOW marijuana legalization links to setcol, or some other link. It can have a link and I could know that but I'm not writing your arguments for you, just please explain it relatively clearly. My opinion and how i feel on k's has changed a good amount. A good K is great, just make sure if you run it its going to be good.

K Aff's- Haven't debated many, i don't think t/fw is inherently racist/sexist/whatever agaisnt it, you can make that and win on it easy, I just won't drop t/fw automatically if ur hoping I do. But run whatever k aff u want idrc

Theory-I just don't like it in general, it's very boring and repetitve please try not to read it I can judge it fine and won't be biased but I find rounds involving anything else more enjoyable.

Familiar with most theory arguments, disclo, para, all of that and the fun frivolous stuff. I personally think disclosure if u can is good and cut cards are good too, but i don't lean on either of those in rounds and voting on disclo bad/para good is totally fine with me. Debate and convince me however u want to on CI's and reasonability and RVI's, I default competing interps and no RVI's. Haven't debated theory much, generally I think its boring/kinda stupid unless its disclosure or paraphrasing, but even then, it won't be a high speaks win if you read it and win. If its something fun then yeah

T/fw- Go for it im fine with this, ran it enough and know it enough to be able to interact/judge it, but please please please don't just spam backfiles responses without explaining anything, i might not know what the third response on clash or procedural fairness was so just try to have all ur responses make sense and not be meaningless spam. I'm too lazy to write stuff up, you do you, I don't have any biases on anything.

Impact Turns - Adding this just cause, I love these. Spark, wipeout, dedev, all impact turns, except things that are bad like racism good, are fine with me. I've been aff and read neg links or whole neg args and then impact turned them myself. Doing something creative or fun like that, reading cards for ur opponents and then impact turning it all, will get you nice speaks.

Email me after if you have questions about stuff in the round

Cattleya Liu Speech and Debate China

Kushagra Mahajan Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:20 PM PDT

LD Paradigm Hey everyone, I've been involved in debate for a while and I value rounds that are meaningful and engaging, so here's what I'm looking for: Framework: Feel free to run a framework if it's relevant, but don't get bogged down in unnecessary debates. If your frameworks are fundamentally different, explain why yours is better and how it changes how I should evaluate the round. If they're similar, focus on the arguments that actually matter. And most importantly, justify your framework – don't just state it. Tell me why I should prefer your standard. Evidence: I appreciate it when debaters really dig into the evidence. Call out flaws in your opponent's cards, explain why their evidence doesn't actually support their argument, or show inconsistencies. But don't just read cards – analyze them! Connect the evidence to your arguments and explain the bigger picture. Argumentation: Be creative! I'm open to most arguments as long as they're well-supported and your opponent has a fair chance to respond. If you're running something unusual like a pre-fiat K, make sure you explain it clearly and tell me why it's relevant to the round. The same goes for plans – justify them! Theory: Theory should be used strategically, not as a cheap shot. If you're going to run it, make sure you have a clear violation and explain why it's important enough for me to vote on. No frivolous theory, please. and for Speed: I can handle some speed, but clarity is key. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you, and if I can't flow you, I can't vote for you. How I Vote: Ultimately, tell me why you're winning the round. Weigh your impacts against your opponent's, compare your arguments, and connect everything back to the framework (if there is one). Don't leave me guessing – show me the path to the ballot! If there's no clear framework or weighing, I'll prioritize the risk of offense and the importance of the arguments. PF Paradigm Hey PFers! My focus in PF is on clarity, clash, and persuasion. PF should be accessible, so keep it simple and focused on the resolution. Here's what I'm looking for: Framework: I generally evaluate rounds based on "on-balance," but you can propose a different framework if it's relevant to the resolution. If you do, explain it clearly and tell me why I should use it. Evidence: Evidence matters, but how you use it matters more. Analyze your evidence, explain why it's important, and show how it connects to your arguments. Don't just read cards – engage with your opponent's evidence and try to find weaknesses in it. Clash: This is crucial in PF! Directly address your opponent's arguments, refute them, and explain why your impacts are more important. Don't leave me to figure out who's winning – tell me! Technicalities: Keep the speed reasonable. PF should be understandable to a lay audience. Avoid excessive jargon. Final Focus: This is your chance to summarize the key points of the round and explain why you've won. Weigh your impacts, remind me of the most important arguments, and leave no doubt in my mind. How I Vote: I'm looking for clear arguments, strong clash, and persuasive weighing. I'll flow everything, but you need to help me understand what's most important. Show me why your impacts outweigh your opponent's and why you deserve the ballot. Basically, Keep it clear, clash effectively, weigh your impacts, and tell me why you're winning! I'm looking for strategic thinking and well-executed arguments. Make my job easy!

Aditi Mhatre Speech and Debate India Middle School

Last changed on Sat October 19, 2024 at 3:12 AM GMT

Judge Paradigm:

Background:
As a judge, I believe in fairness and objectivity. My role is to evaluate the debate based on the arguments presented, not my personal beliefs or knowledge. I appreciate clear, logical argumentation and effective communication.

Flow/Structure:
I will flow the round carefully, so I appreciate clear signposting and roadmap speeches. A well-structured case that’s easy to follow will always benefit you. If you want me to weigh a specific argument, make it clear in your summary and final speeches.

Evidence vs. Analysis:
I believe both evidence and analysis are important. Strong evidence should support well-thought-out analysis, but a debate that is too evidence-heavy without explanation or context may lose persuasive power. I value quality of evidence over quantity—just throwing a lot of facts at me without tying them to your argument won’t win you the round.

Speaks (Speaker Points):
I evaluate speaker points based on clarity, delivery, and engagement. Confidence and professionalism in presentation matter, but you don’t need to be flashy. Effective use of rhetoric, persuasive tone, and strategic word choices can enhance your delivery.

Cross-Examination (CX):
Cross-examination is key to identifying weaknesses in your opponent’s case. I appreciate debaters who use CX to ask meaningful questions and clarify points rather than trying to score cheap wins. It’s also a good opportunity to control the narrative.

Theory/Framework:
If you run theory, make sure it's warranted and not frivolous. I am open to hearing theory and framework debates, but it must be well-justified and impact the round significantly. I am more inclined to vote on these if the abuse is clear and affects the debate directly.

Speed (Spreading):
I’m comfortable with speed, but clarity is a must. If I can’t understand what you’re saying because of speed, it won’t make it on the flow. I’ll call for "clear" if needed, but keep in mind that over-spreading can hurt you more than help.

Weighing:
I highly value good weighing mechanisms. Make sure to tell me why your impacts matter more and how they compare to your opponent’s arguments. Impact calculus is crucial in close rounds, and I prefer to hear clear explanations of magnitude, probability, and timeframe.

Voter Issues:
In the final speeches, please be clear on your voting issues. Summarizing key arguments and telling me why you should win will help me when making a decision. I prefer to see debaters focus on crystallizing the debate rather than introducing new arguments in the last speeches.

Conclusion:
In summary, I look for clear, structured, and logical arguments. I’m open to all kinds of debate styles, but clarity and strategic choices are key. Make sure to tell me why you win, and I’ll base my decision on what’s presented in the round.

Prateek Motagi Hire

Tobekile Mpofu BL Debate HS

Anais Nam BC Academy

Geremy Napitupulu Speech and Debate China

tinashe NERWANDE Cicero Project

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 3:26 AM EDT

Judge Philosophies\

Judge’s Name : TINASHE NERWANDE

2 Tell us about your debate judging experience.

I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.

3. Tell us about your debating experience.

I h I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.

4. 4. What is your speaking speed preference?

a. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

a. I l pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.

6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?

b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive

7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?

a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?

As a judge I take note of the quality of reasoning and the speaker's points to be essential factors in evaluating the debate. I assess how well each speaker presents their arguments, supports them with evidence, and addresses the topic at hand. I also look at the structure and organization of their points, as well as their ability to effectively engage with their opponents' arguments.

Additionally, I consider the clarity and persuasiveness of the speakers' delivery, including their tone, demeanor, and ability to connect with the audience.By evaluating both the reasoning behind the arguments and the effectiveness of the speakers' points, I aim to determine the overall quality of the debate and select the most compelling team as the winner

9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

I suggest debaters to make sure you do as much research on the topic as you could before entering the round. You only succeed with over-preparation. Have a fun debate.

Sean Nowlan HMDC Forensics Team

Last changed on Wed March 13, 2024 at 10:21 AM PDT

I've done Parliamentary, Lincoln-Douglas, and IPDA debate for three years competitively. I've read all manner of kritiks, theory, and case debate, so anything you read in front of me goes as far as kinds of debate are concerned. While I read a lot of kritiks around Settler Colonialism during my Sophomore year, that doesn't mean I want to hear them over and over if the arguments aren't going to be good. I was CUI's director of debate for two years, but now I'm a history PHD student. I'll highlight the most important no-nos.

THIS IS UPDATED FOR 2025.

In General-

Pessimistic Kritiks:

See kritik section, but with specifically pessimistic kritiks. I'm more prone towards voting for actions that build systems or have alternative systems of power rather than just tear them down. I am more prone to vote for optimistic kritiks than pessimistic ones; usually because I've rarely seen a pess kritik where tearing down systems doesn't make things worse for the groups it's trying to protect

Speed:

I debated fast and against fast debaters. Once you start exceeding 300+ words a minute I won't write down every single minor argument made, I've gotten rustier with flowing now that I don't coach anymore.
If the other team shouts "slow," "clear," or "loud" please do so. Maximize accessibility for everyone. I am receptive to theory if the other team doesn't take reasonable steps to ensure accessibility.

Theory
Theory is more than a bunch of taglines, the taglines need explanations to matter. Don't just state a voter or a priori, state why it matters.
- I default to theory as a priori and weigh on the basis of competing interps unless otherwise told.

Case Debate

- Love it. Its my favorite kind of debate by far, it's the whole reason I started debate was to argue about politics around the world
- Quoting Alex Li: Theory is often a copout. If you are winning case and theory, I prefer case, but do whatever is strategic.
- From monetary policy to Congressional bureaucratic minutiae to the environment, I love all kinds of advantages and disadvantages. I'm not a person predisposed to hating the United States or capitalism
- If you’re going to say a person or policy is bad, you can't just call it right-wing, Republican, or conservative you have to actually explain why it's wrong or the material action a group takes to harm others. Terminalize your impacts.
- When it comes to case debates, I need warrants, and more often than not I'm constantly asking for people to specify/quantify in any way their impacts

Kritiks:

- Nothing makes me more excited on the kritik than to see links and impacts very contextual to the round/resolution.
- If your alt has no impact, is not competitive, is generic, or is conditional; it makes me much less likely to vote for you on the basis of a kritik.
- Many kritikal alternatives I hear very easily can be argued to have no solvency or have solvency which actively makes the world worse; dont be afraid to argue against kritikal solvency.
- There are very good reasons to reasons to reject some topics, but usually I default to affirmatives upholding the resolution. You have to have good links to the topic, claiming that you need to run your affirmative kritik just because there is a structural problem with debate itself usually doesnt balance out against topicality theory in front of me.
- As I've stepped away from the debate sphere my willingness to tolerate shallow kritikal education over education from topical case debate continues to wane, more than ever I would like some alternative solvency that proves you're actions have some measurably or meaningfully different education. Both have been around for decades so trying to present a new kritik as a novel time-sensitive message is something I'll place less weight on.

Conditionality and PICs:

- I voted for conditional advocacies and for PICs, and voted against them. There are theoretical reasons for and against both.
- If you collapse to a conditional kritik, your solvency and the necessity of your advocacy are undermined by the fact you are willing to kick it.

Olamilekan Joshua Oderanti Hire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:52 PM UTC

I'm an active debater, public speaker and judge (2019–present). I've had a two-time experience coaching college student in public speaking and oratory

He/Him pronouns

Feel free to add me to your email chain and mail me If you ever need a judge for your school's online events: olamilekanoderanti@gmail.com

FLOW

I view myself as a flow judge (writing down key arguments), but the clarity and strength of your advocacy narrative is crucial.

If you present in an organized, concise, and articulate manner, while also extending compelling arguments, you'll excel.

A distinct and coherent advocacy narrative on the flow is invaluable. Such a narrative aids in shaping your responses and in constructing a comparative world, essential for my understanding, analysis and weighing of the round.

EXTENSIONS

Proper use and cutting of proofs are very crucial to me. While debate may be seen as a game, it takes place in the real world with real consequences. It matters that we properly represent what's happening in the world around us. Please, follow all pertinent tournament rules and guidelines - violations are grounds for a low-point-win or a loss. Rules for NSDA tournaments can be found at https://www.speechanddebate.org/high-school-unified-manual/.

SPEECH CONDUCT

I can’t follow everything in your speech if you speak at a high pace. Your main goal should be clarity. Articulate your points so your opponent and I comprehend you.
Everyone should maintain civility and politeness. If situations escalate, it's everyone's duty to calm things down. Avoid shouting. Recognize your privileges and use them to uplift and respect others.
Please provide trigger warnings when appropriate.
Endeavor to work with time. It's advisable that you have a separate timer
Feel free to come with a water bottle. I've seen speakers battle with cough and I believe speakers do better with the least amount of discomfort.

WHAT APPEALS

Although every judge has a pre-existing belief, I consider myself open-minded and all you need do to convince me is to be clear with your speech with relatable evidence.

Over time, I've discovered that speakers who struggle to provide evidence especially when questioned by their opponent tend to be less convincing to me and seldom lost the round to their opponents who often reiterate that they failed to provide evidence and that reduced the quality of their argument.

Also, more appealing to me is an engaging speaker especially during crossfire. So, please, engage your opponents as much as possible. Avoid being cold/lukewarm/silent during cross.

Before you conclude I can’t judge a format, KINDLY REACH OUT TO ME as I’ve got a good knowledge of numerous formats and I’m only hoping to judge them pretty soon. I hope to work with you soonest.

Olayinka Oderanti VDA - Vancouver Debate Academy

Last changed on Wed August 7, 2024 at 3:32 AM EDT

Hello, my name is olayinka Oderanti. I am a debater, a coach and an experienced judge since (2022-now. For me, speaking is an hobby and I love listening to people speak.

Over the years, I have gathered vast experience in different styles of debating, these includes; British Parliamentary (BP), Asian Parliamentary (AP), World Schools Debate Championship (WSDC), Canadian National Debate Format (CNDF), Public Forum (PF), congress, Parliamentary debate, Lincoln Douglas (LD),World scholastic championship (WSC) and some others.

I have also judge many speeches.

As a judge, I prioritize equality of debaters and fairness during every round.
I also take time as very important,for me arguments made after the stipulated time won't be acknowledged.

I appreciate speakers that prioritize clarity instead of pace or speed without clarity. Heads-up could be given when speakers decide to speak extremely fast and documents can also be sent for already planned motion for some formats like Lincoln Douglas(LD)and public forum (PF).

I mostly prioritize arguments and logic over style. Speakers should emphasize their arguments well enough instead of randomly stating them.

I appreciate speakers who understands the difference in formats and motions and know what they should do and not to.
A little bit of summary of the speech should be given at the end of the round to summarize why you win the round picking from arguments given during the round and the crossfire sessions.

I have a variety of skills such as rapt listening, critical analysis, and attention to details which allows me to access submissions fairly and without bias.
I am committed to encouraging and supporting participants ensuring that their efforts are recognized and valued. To me, it’s not just about selecting a winner but also fostering growth and breeding potentials.

Here are a few of my past experiences judging ( tabroom specific)

1. Judge 7 PF rounds, Georgetown Fall, 6th October 2023.

2. Finals, Semifinals and Octofinals judge of ESPAR, ESPAR and PF respectively, Dempsey Cronin Memorial Invitational, 11th November 2023.

3. Judge semifinal, quart and 3 rounds including PF,ESPAR and IMP in the WInter championship,6th January,2024.

4. ⁠ judge doubles, octafinals and 6 rounds of PF in the 38th annual Stamford invitational,10th February,2024.

5. ⁠judged 3 double flighted rounds of PF in the Harvard National Speech and Debate Tournament 16th February,2024.

6. ⁠judged 3 rounds of LD in the Loyola special scrimmage , 2nd march 2024.

7. ⁠judged a round of asynchronous declamation at the NSDA springboard scrimmage 23,19th march, 2024.

8. ⁠judged 3 rounds of CNDF at the Vancouver debate academy spring tournament 22nd June 2024.
⁠
9. ⁠judged 2 rounds of IPDA HS/JH season opener 13th September 2024.

10. Judges 4 rounds of PF including doubles in the Tim Averill invitational online October 2024.

11. Judged a round of WSD in the citron November world school invitational November 2024.

12. Judged 2 rounds of LD in the Citron December debate invitational,December 2024..

Let’s have a great time anyways.

pronouns He/him

Jesutofunmi Joshua OGUNNIRAN Hire

Last changed on Wed January 24, 2024 at 10:14 PM WAT

✓ I have been judging for over twelve months, and I have judges several debate tournaments of different formats ranging from PF to LD, CX, Congress, speech.... I have judged debates in not less than twenty different tournaments.

✓ I allow debaters to expressly and effectively communicate their arguments while prioritizing clarity over speed for the sake of judge's thorough assessment and of course their opponents' understanding. Jargon or technical language could be permitted only when used to communicate the subject area of the debate.

✓ I do judge with my note and pen readily available beside me so as to take note of important or key arguments including rebuttals and summaries.

✓ I prioritize effective delivery of arguments. Any intelligent style may be employed by debaters but within the scope/ guidelines of each debate format.

✓ In assessing a debate, I consider the articulation of arguments, polite demeanor especially during cross-examination, the content of the arguments if it resonate with the resolution, however, all debate activities must to specific to the debate format of that moment.

✓ I could describe the argument I found most persuasive in my previous debate rounds in this manner, the arguments were constructive, arguments delivery was audible and clear, there was a good teamwork between the side of the debate, educative and friendly demeanor was maintained throughout the debate round, the arguments were supported with claims and evidences, and of course the team won my vote.

✓ Aggressive and cutting opponents' responses during cross-examination are very unnecessary, maintaining educative, competitive and friendly demeanor pays off. However, I look forward to constructive arguments, intelligent and audible delivery of speech, claims with evidences to support arguments, persuasive counterarguments and timeliness.

Best regards.

Jesutofunmi Joshua OGUNNIRAN

Opoola Opeyemi Hire

Jaden Panicker Hire

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:12 AM CDT

Hello. I debated in PF for 3 years from 2017-2020 for Westlake High School, Texas. I competed on the national circuit during my last year.

Tech > Truth. I think debate is a game.

If anything is confusing on here or if you have any questions, just ask me before round.

*For online rounds: Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards/having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest, time your prep.

1. Argumentation. I was mostly a substance debater so this is what I am most comfortable with. That being said, I do not care what you run as long as it is explained to me (although I would definitely prefer substance arguments). Again, I am tech > truth so you can say extinction good and I will buy if it is explained well. I have experience running extinction framing if that is something that interests you. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I'll have some trouble if you are going fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.

2. Speed. I enjoyed going fast while debating and I can handle some speed, but I never was the fastest flow-er so try not to go too fast. I should be fine with most PF speed. Going fast is your choice and I'll try my best to keep up, but there is always a chance that I miss the nuance or specific warranting when you're speaking fast.

3. Extensions/weigh. Please make sure you are extending all parts of your argument (links, warrants, impacts, and anything in between). If you extend your link but no impact, it will be very hard to evaluate. Also, extensions or any argument has to be in both summary and final focus for me to evaluate it. However, don't spend all your time extending, just extend and continue. If something is dropped and the other team extends it, I will consider it as conceded. Also, frontline your case in 2nd rebuttal, otherwise the defense will be conceded. Defense is not sticky. Don't bring up new arguments in summary and final focus and expect me to count it as extensions. Weighing is also VERY good and will win you rounds. I know weighing can sometimes be hard and messy, but try your best. Conceded weighing stands true.

4. Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however, evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.

5. Presumption. I will try to make a decision to the best of my ability. If there is nothing I can possibly vote on and I have to presume, then I will presume neg because it is the least interventionist (the aff's burden is to disprove the neg). However, if you want me to presume any other way (1st or aff or whatever), just warrant why in a speech.

6. Disclosing. I will always disclose unless I am not supposed to. I will try and give oral feedback and I will write less on the ballot, so write down what I am saying if you don't want to forget. If you want to ask questions or anything, go for it, just try to be chill. I won't be mad or hold it against you, I think questions are good and will help everyone learn more.

7. Speaks. I would say that I generally give higher speaks, and I will give 30s to great speakers. Some tournaments are trying to standardize speaks, so I try my best to adjust to what the tournament speaks call for.

8. Other notes. Please, please signpost otherwise I might miss something trying to figure out where you are on the flow. Try to be nice during round to make it more fun, but I understand if things get heated and won't dock speaks unless you are being blatantly rude. Don't be sexist, homophobic, racist, or anything of the sort. I sometimes make motions such as nodding my head or giving a questioning look, but I try not to be distracting. Use this to your advantage to see if I'm vibing with what you are saying or not. I never vote on cross, but I may occasionally listen if I am interested. Time yourselves and your opponents so there is no confusion. I would prefer that you flip when I am present just so if there is any disagreement I can help resolve it. If both teams want to flip before, I don't really care. Also, I am not coaching or prepping topics, so I won't have the topic knowledge as other judges might have, so take that as you will (I will usually catch on pretty quick).

Daequan Poole Power Speakers Unlimited

Last changed on Sat October 5, 2024 at 3:13 AM CDT

GENERAL: I debated for Bettendorf HS '14-'18. I competed in Public Forum Mainly, little bit of Lincoln Douglas, and tried just about every other event. I was a 3 time national qualifier and this past year became the assistant coach at Bettendorf High School. Lots of national circuit experience in PF. As far as other events go i'm not here to push my or any agenda. My goal is to interpretate your performances in the debates/speech rounds not how I feel or think. My paradigm here is just to make your lives easier. Any questions feel free to ask!!!

I understand that things can be tense at tournaments so I try to keep the things pretty relaxed but with that being said a few things I expect:

1) Shake hands with opponents after round

2) Make sure everyone is ready before we start

Afro pessimism = auto W and 30’s from me.

{Public Forum}

NPF-No new evidence in second speeches or no new after two on the flow. Just be nice to each other everyone is learning.

VPF- Rock roll, just send speech docs if spreading. Better safe than sorry. Not that I can’t flow just want to make sure you are actually reading cards in case and not just like 3 words of a card.

SPEECHES:I like nuanced arguments. Clash is must Summary can be line by line and FF should generally go over the same issues in the same order. But please for everyone’s sake no new in the 2 and make sure you are signposting.

Afro pessimism = auto W and 30’s from me.

{Lincoln Douglas}

NLD- No new evidence in second speeches or no new after two on the flow. Just be nice to each other everyone is learning. Unless you can clearly explain what you are arguing, keep it simple. Novice is to learn and should be treated as such.

VLD- Truth over tech. I'm pretty much a traditionalist in the sense of topical LD debates. Easiest route to my ballot is value, criterion, (definitions if needed) and contention level debate. However I do enjoy a well constructed CP or even good K if actually fighting against real issues and not using K as a chance to win ballots.

Speed: I'm okay with speed normally. Most people I have met cannot spread and they say a bunch of words but don't finish sentences Im not going to write down words you didn't say so don't try it. I like some kind of doc share just to be safe.

SPEECHES:1AR, and 1NR, should be line by line with lots of sign posting. 2NR, and 2 AR should generally go over the same issues in the same order with some form of crystallization. Give me voters and tell me why based on your last speech you should win.

CROSSFIRE:I don't flow crossfire, questions must require some nuance or explanation so don't force opponents to quickly answer yes or no to make them look bad. At the same time answer the questions and move on. If you opponent wants more of an explanation don't just try and push past it for your turn. Feel free to capitalize on concessions but everything that happens in CF must be used in the speeches for me to flow it. CX should be relevant and questions should actually further the debate or be used to clarify questions not as prep time. I will not hold it against you if the cross doesn't go full time if you deemed yourself done with questions.

{Speech events}

Interp- (DI- Whoever moves me the most or makes me the most sad along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.

Hi- Whoever makes me laugh the most along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.

Duo- Whoever makes me laugh the most or Whoever moves me the most or makes me the most sad along with clear transitions and character switching will get the top rank.

Exempt: Usually I prefer 3 main points. Good intro and outro. Sources are dated and usually enjoy when you are able to create a story out of your answering of the question.

Spon: Same thing as above just no sources.

Kailyn Price Georgetown Day School

Last changed on Sat February 17, 2024 at 5:25 AM EDT

Hello! I am so glad that you're here!

I competed in some combination of congress, PF, parli, and extemp for 8 years. I appreciate line-by-line rebuttals, and I will take note if you drop subpoint rebuttals, so don't just carry taglines and unwarranted rebuttals. I don't usually flow cross but I will take note if something particularly important occurs. Since I don't typically flow cross, if you want to make sure that I count a concession, omission, or other notable point during cross towards your side, you should incorporate it into your speeches and weigh. Debate is an opportunity to employ logic and reasoning, not just repetition and intuition. Make your evidence make sense- it won't do that for you. PF speaking times are not optimal for discussing critical theory but I'm willing to evaluate theory if you have a strong grasp on what you're talking about. If you run a K, please don't assume that it will automatically win you the round- really think deeply about what you're trying to accomplish. Often a K is just a framework or an argument, so think about the intended outcome of your approach. Similarly, I am comfortable with PF cases that prioritize non-traditional values or ethical principles. There are always many good ways to analyze a resolution.

I highly value strong and unique speakers. I will evaluate speaking style in your points, and I do not preference cookie cutter speaking styles. Creative and dynamic speakers are often more convincing, so use this to your advantage. I can also see through convincing speaking styles and gesticulation to evaluate the content, so you need to be strong in both.

You should provide a weighing mechanism and framework, and this should be carried through the round. If you want to win, please don't forget to tell me how to evaluate the round. If your opponent offers a weighing mechanism and you provide no reason for me to doubt its validity, that will be the the way that I evaluate the round. If neither team tells me how to evaluate the round, I will run down my flow for dropped arguments, then evaluate winners in clash, then look at the strength of the original arguments.

Brief roadmaps are okay if necessary but should either be at the beginning of your speech (after time has started) or no more than 5 seconds off time. I will keep time, but please keep your own time so that I don't have to interrupt you. I also understand the need to call for cards, but it should be within reason. If your opponent asks for a card and it is revealed that your framing was blatantly misleading or the evidence just does not exist, that will reflect very negatively on your speaker points and potentially my overall ballot. Be honest! It doesn't serve you to lie.

Most importantly- I'm excited that you've chosen to participate in debate. It is non-negotiable to me that you are reasonably courteous to one another and take seriously the opportunity and responsibility to discuss issues that impact real people every day.

Luci Purba SD Academy

Jodi Rahman SD Academy

Ethan Ramos Hire

Last changed on Tue October 29, 2024 at 2:02 AM PDT

howdy,

former HS/Collegiate competitor

I judge quite a bit

treat others the way you want to be treated
I don't do email chains... NSDA docs, speech drop or google docs are the way to go
if using historical evidence (for debate events or public speaking events) you must address the 5 C's of historical analysis.. if not there's an L waiting for you
FOR PF debate!!!- I don't flow off the doc, I only look at it for evidence (only if you tell me to, also no email chains for me..)
somewhere in between truth and tech

IE's -

MS/HS - you do youu!!

Collegiate - you know what to do

^ very big on binder etiquette

Congress -

no rehash

its ok to agree but have your own contentions/speech

stay active thru round for high ranks

clash - def gotta engage with competitors for maximum affect

PO - if you don't state your gaveling procedures almost immediately I'm gonna rank you last

^ don't make any mistakes or imma tank you

direct questioning is meant for answers/clarification not being rude !!!

don't lie about evidence

PF - will auto down if you say exclusionary things and or things def not true (holocaust never happened) etc ...

I'm very big on the Public aspect of PF

love a good framework or Role of the Ballot round

no email chains for me, either google docs, nsda doc/drive or speech drop - if not oh well

if your file or doc is a mess I am NOT going near it

evidence practices are pretty bad in PF, should you notice it LMK in speech and lets see what we can do

no speed/spreading in PF, talking fast is ok tho - speed/spreading and were gonna have a problem

tech or truth? Somewhere in between the two

Don't waste my time, flips and pre flows better be done before start caz if not imma start tanking speaks

Condo/Fiat - IMO should be left to LD/CX but if you bring it up I'll evaluate it I guess

^ gotta explain it , if not I am not evaluating

resolutions/topics sometimes have loose wording... take advantage of that

impact cal is an easy voter and is well appreciated

good luck going for a technical knock out

the more unlikely the claim, the higher the burden of proof is

paraphrasing is a BIG NO, read actual cards/tags

I will no longer be evaluating Disclosure T as of March '25 -if you run Disclosure its an auto L

^ I will NOT be evaluating any Theory, Non Identity K's, Phil - auto L

^^ wanna run these? go to LD or CX

content in the LD section does not apply to this PF section - non negotiable

what's the deal with a lack of front lining and signposting? If you don't then you're getting an L

when citing evidence , be sure to say title , publisher , date

stop going over time !!

make any round more complicated than it has to be and I will look for every/any way to vote against you

MY GO TO RULE FOR PF.... the Michael Scott rule - K.I.S - "Keep It Simple'

LD - if its a state or bid or RR tournament send a doc , if not then don't bother

if spreading you better be clear or imma down, too bad

^ not gonna say clear

tech or truth?? somewhere in between

P/CP - better be specific , if so I am the judge for you

Trad - I'm an ok judge

K - I prefer judging identity K's.. but non identity K's proceed with caution

LARP - I like it... but can go either way

Tricks/Friv T/Performance/Phil/Disclosure T

^ auto strike!!

^^ unless you're running nihilism Phil don't strike, but if not then strike

NGL - if your case is blippy I am gonna look for everyway to vote against you

this section only applies to LD .. not PF

CX - LOL

unless it's TRAD I won't judge

Worlds - I expect to see clash

don't paraphrase evidence

no speed, this needs to be conversational

its ok to have a model/c.m , but don't get policy debate crazy with them

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

I really value creative, introspective and real rhetoric - trust me this is how you win me

style - a simple claim, warrant and impact will do just fine

don't try a PF take on this event

the framework and definitions debate can be fair and or abusive ... if abusive then you're gonna loose

Should any questions need to be asked ... ask before round!

Best of LUCK 2024-2025 competitors !

Karina Samuel Hire

Olga Sayyidina Speech and Debate China

Sam Semcheshen Honor Academy

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 10:26 AM PDT

Hi I'm Sam (she/her) and I’m a junior in college. I have 3 years of experience in PF, 1 in Parli, and now I coach PF.

Add me to the email chain: samsemcheshen@gmail.com

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

All:

Read content warnings for anything that might need it and have an extra case if someone opts out.

Be respectful, I'm fine with rounds being casual but everyone in the round should be respected. Be nice, be polite. If I look annoyed, that's probably just because I'm tired, but if I make it very obvious that I have stopped flowing and I am just staring at you, you're probably doing something wrong. Bad behavior will reflect in your speaks and in some cases possibly my decision.

Speed is fine (not spreading though lol) but I prefer slower debates, especially if we are online.

Time yourselves please. If it's novice I'll time, but you should still try and time yourselves in case I forget and so you don't have to rely on me solely.

Keep each other accountable but don't be the prep police or speech sheriff. For speeches, I'd say give each other like a 10 second grace period.

HOWEVER, I don't know why I keep seeing this but a lot of online people just start taking prep without saying anything. Please don't do this or else I am going to have to nag to make sure you're not stealing prep. If you're gonna take prep please just say so before you start.

SIGNPOST!!!! or I will have no clue what is going on.

Terminalized impacts please, I don't care that the GDP was raised by 1% what does that even mean. I should also not be hearing your impact once in constructive then never again or you just referring to it as "our impact" without restating what it is. EXTEND IMPACTS.

I'm cool with a rowdy cross those are fun just don't get too carried away and make sure everyone is able to speak.

Also, reading whole cards in cross is my pet peeve. Try not to do that.

Some evidence things!!!!:

To save time, set up ev exchange before the round starts. (I think email chains are best but its your call)
On that note, I don't have a set time limit for how long pulling up evidence should take, but it shouldn't take long. I've seen teams struggle to find a "card" they just read in their speech and like ???? You either got the card or you don't.
If you just send a link and tell someone to "control f" I am gonna cry. Send cards, its not hard.
To help enforce better norms, if I see that when your team's evidence is called for, it is properly cut and shared in an appropriate way (AKA not pasted into zoom/NSDA campus chat or handing each other your laptops), I will give your team a speaks boost of .3 . All evidence shared must abide in order to get the boost.

PF:

PF has the worst evidence ethics so go ahead and reread the evidence points I put earlier just in case.

I'm cool with paraphrasing cards but you better have a cut card version if someone calls for it.

I hate when people wait until 2nd summary to frontline. I am more comfortable evaluating frontlines done in 2nd rebuttal than if you skip that and only frontline in 2nd summary. Frankly, if the other team comes up in ff and says that frontlining only in summary is unfair, I'll probably agree with them and you'll be out of luck.

Is defense sticky? NOPE!

If it is not extended into summary, I'm not evaluating it in ff. Don't just spam your impact numbers, remind me how you get there. If you don't think you have time for that, then maybe you should have been collapsing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Basically, if you end up not extending your case properly, oh well your loss. Literally your loss.

Other:

For LD, Policy, Parli, etc. just treat me more trad.

I can evaluate theory but I am not super experienced with it. If you want to do it anyway, make sure you slow down and REALLY explain it well to me.

If I'm allowed to, I typically disclose and give feedback. If you have questions about my decision or want specific feedback, I'm happy to explain as long as you are going about it in a respectful way.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before the round :)

Han Sen SD Academy

Shreen Shavkani Hire

Last changed on Wed January 31, 2024 at 7:50 AM EDT

Hey, my name is Shreen and I did some PF and Policy in high school and continued to watch open rounds after I stopped debating.

Public Forum

SPEED NOTE HAVARD 2025 - Please go slower than you would for a full tech Policy judge - email:shavkani@gmail.com

*would prefer if cases/rebuttals were sent over before speech to ensure all arguments are flowed properly*

1) Case: Make logical arguments and don't think that by having evidence you'll win the round in it of itself. If your link is overstretched without evidence, I may call for it after round. Overall, I'm good on speed but you shouldn't be spreading at a TOC Policy Finals level. Make sure to look up to see if I'm comprehending and if I'm looking at you with a face you might be going too fast. Feel free to read anything before the round and ask if that speed is okay.

2) Road Maps: Make sure to give me a road map before rebuttal, summary, and final focus. A road map isn't required to win the round, but your speaker points may be hurt if you don't provide me one. If you don't follow your road map during speech don't bother giving one.

3) Warrants: Explain to me why something is happening. Making arguments and reading your tag over and over again during crossfire when your opponent or I ask you for an explanation isn't enough. I need you to tell me why something happens, or I won't vote on it. Don't just say they dropped or conceded 'X' but tell me why dropping or conceding 'X' matters in the round for me to vote on it.

***Key tip*** - Read my body language, and if it doesn't look like I understand, try to explain it to me since you're not convincing your opponent but to me as a judge.

4) Weighing: Weighing in rebuttal is a smart strategic move and might boost your speaker points but it's not required. However, if you don't weigh in on the summary and final focus, your speech will hurt dramatically, and you will most likely lose the round. Also make sure to not weigh in a vacuum, rather do comparative weighing. Tell my why your impacts matter more than your opponents. This will significantly help your speaks as well as making it easier for me to give a clear RFD. Thus, weigh weigh weigh!!!

5) Front lining: Front lining makes you look prepared and helps your first speaker out during summary, with that being said, it’s not required.

6) Summary: Make sure to give me a road map and weigh. Collapse on key arguments and make sure to warrant to me exactly why these arguments matter more than others in the debate.

7) Final Focus: Everything in Final Focus must be in summary. If you shadow pull not only will I not vote on it, you are wasting your time during the Final Focus which could be used to elaborate on other arguments present in the debate. Make sure to give me a road map before speech and tell me why you won the debate and the best way to do that is through comparative weighing.

8) Evidence: Paraphrasing is fine for PF but you must have cut cards if either me or your opponent calls for it. If you do not, I will vote against you and lower your speaks.

DO NOT CHERRY PICK OR CLIP YOUR EVIDENCE YOU WILL BE VOTED AGAINST IT FOR DOING SO

9) Prep: Time yourselves and don't steal prep. I will also time just in case and be sure to confirm with me after you say, "stop prep" and tell me how much prep is left/used just in case. Use the phrase "start prep" when you begin so don't just begin writing for me to assume you're using prep. By not being clear of when you start and/or stop using prep your speaker points may be affected by it so just don't steal prep.

10) Speaker Point Scale:

<26 means you were offensive/rude

26.1-26.9 means you need improvement and/or probably dropped case

27-27.9 means you probably missed things on the flow and might have made poor strategic decisions in the back half of the round.

YOU CANNOT GET HIGHER THAN A 28 FROM ME IF YOU FORGET TO WEIGH YOUR ARGUMENTS FOR ME.

28-28.9 means you are a good debater, probably can break at the tournament given pairings and other factors; you extend most of the right things in the back half of the round and do decent weighing.

29-29.5 means you extend all or almost all the right things, explain your arguments/warrants in a concise manner, and, more importantly, you break away from weighing in a vacuum to comparative weighing.

29.6-30 means that you made a smart strategic move and comparatively weighed your arguments, collapsed on the right things, and provided a coherent comparative analysis/narrative that made my decision easy.

*** Scale from Josh Schulster**

***Keep in Mind for Speaker Points***

+ 1 speaker point for everyone in the debate if both teams send me their case before round

BOTH TEAMS MUST SEND ME THEIR CASE BEFORE THE ROUND IF YOU WANT THE EXTRA SPEAKER POINT.

11) OTHER:

If you have any questions regarding my paradigm or something I have not mentioned, feel free to ask me before the round

I don't shake hands (it's nothing personal I just don't prefer it)

REMEMBER TO HAVE FUN AND GOOD LUCK

Andrew Shea Power Speakers Unlimited

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2024 at 1:05 PM CDT

Most Important Details is Bolded

My name is Andrew Shea (he/him). You can call me Judge Shea, Andrew, Fire Lord O’Shea, whatever floats your boat.

I am pursuing a major in history and a minor in international relations at the University of Iowa. I am working towards a phd in transnational labor history and relations.

I have a cat named Haywood after Harry Haywood. He is amazing and cool. Ask and I am happy to show pictures.

My email for contact is: ajhamilton112601@gmail.com

I competed at John F Kennedy High School in CR IA. I was coached by Jesse Meyer who remains a large influence on me today.

I judge mainly LD and PF. I was mostly a K debater and did okay throughout my career. I generally understand most arguments.

The summary of my judging is do whatever you want, its your round I am just here to listen, give the best feedback I can, and to give the best educational experience that I can. My paradigm should only be relevant to you to gauge what arguments I best understand/appreciate and what I expect in terms of in round behavior. I do not care if you cater to my preferences or not, do what makes you happy, debate is a game and I want to try and help you get the most out of it

My paradigm breaks down into prefs/speech paradigm, in-round debate behavior, and in-depth LD/PF prefs. Please ask questions if you have any. I am always looking to improve.

LD Cheat Sheet

1 K

2 Phil

3 Trad* or Policy/LARP

4 Theory/Strike**

5 Tricks/Strike (don’t know enough to competently judge)

*I think trad is a good debate format and can be competitive/clash with circuit debate. I put it higher up to tell trad debaters they can pref me without concern.

**I won’t vote you down because you run theory. I just have a lower threshold for response to theory. For example I don’t think you need to run a counter interp or RVIs to respond but if you do, you should do it well.

Two things of note:

I am ok with spreading but ask your opponent beforehand preferably in front of me. If you did not ask (or ignore attempts to find accommodation) and your opponent runs theory/disability arg on why spreading is bad I am more liable (not guaranteed) to drop you. I have no "bad" WPM. I think if you have an issue saying "clear" or "speed" is the responsibility of the debater. If you have a problem with their overall speed mention something to your opponent after the speech. TLDR If you both agree to spread great, if you have an issue with spreading: advocate for yourself and work with each other under the best of intentions.
I am pro Flex Prep but you have to ask before round. I prefer this to avoid someone being denied the opportunity to use it in round. In elims I go with the majority judge view on flex prep.

PF Cheat Sheet

1 Trad PF

2 Critical Args

3Theory/Strike

I am basically fine with anything in PF but theory annoys me. I really prefer normal PF but I won’t mentally check out if that's not your thing.

See above LD prefs for spreading/flex prep

Speech Judging

I am by no means an experienced speech judge but I have coached the very basics and I did exempt and spontaneous in high school. I like to see confidence, good use of the space in a room, rehearsed body movements (don’t just keep your hands in one position unless that is your character's thing for something such as a HI), and just do your best.

Unless explicitly prohibited by tournament rules let me know if you want to give hand signals for time. I would be happy to do them.

Debater Behavior

Ask and Advocate: Debate should be a friendly and welcoming space. To that end, ask and advocate for yourself. If you have an issue or a question please ask. If you feel harmed in some way or see something that bothers you, advocate for yourself. I am happy to facilitate in any way I can to make debate a better space for all. In no way should gender, disability, or class make you feel unsafe in this space.

Assertive and Polite: It is ok to be determined and assertive in a debate round but never belittle your opponent or be snarky to them. Everyone here is a person first and foremost along with being a student. Debate is a pedagogical game and I find it vastly more useful to educate rather than to belittle someone for not understanding or for making a "bad argument" that said, you should absolutely seek to control a round and narrative. Raised and passionate voices are ok but avoid yelling or taking a dismissive, arrogant tone. Be very cognizant of that difference when debating women/non men debaters, sexism is all too prevalent and unacceptable in the debate space and such dynamics do influence my judging particularly in the way I give speaks.

On Spreading: I am not anti-spreading. While I don't think it is a good norm for debate I do understand that it is the default and if everyone is ok with it I will be too. I prefer that people ask before round because I have met several debaters who have had disabilities that prevented them from spreading. I would like debate to realize spreading should be moved away from but because I don't run a camp or have money I at least want to make the space more accessible to different debaters in lieu of some larger change.

Judge Behavior

As a judge I will: provide you with in-depth feedback and always explain to you why I interpreted something the way I did. I will not always be right and make mistakes but I will do my best to explain my reasoning.

Do everything I can to answer questions or redirect you towards resources who can do it better

Provide a safe environment for debaters as someone in the community who cares and who will listen.

LD Prefs in-depth

Since I mainly judge LD here is more in depth thoughts for those who care to read them:

K debate: I love K debate. My political beliefs lead me to love hearing Parenti, Gramsci, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Losurdo, Fanon, and many others along the communist and decolonial based lines. As such I will be happy when I hear cap bad, china isn’t the devil, palestine will be free, etc. That said I familiar with many other authors and I am generally friendly towards hearing any new arguments and I am happy to learn about anything new.

Phil: I know some but not alot. I would love to learn more and therefore feel free to run anything just explain it well.

Trad: I think it can and should endeavor to be more competitive with circuit debate.

Policy/Larp: I don’t necessarily have a problem with it, sometimes I just find it boring. Honestly I have grown to like it more because I actually do enjoy hearing about the resolution.

Theory: I won’t vote someone down because they run theory but I firmly believe that theory is often used in a way that makes debate poor and ruins the quality of argumentation. I think it harms accessibility and as a result my threshold for response is lower. While I feel like I have a decent grasp on theory debate there is a greater risk of me not fully comprehending your argument as I haven't attempted to immerse myself in the mechanics due to my dislike.

What I look for in a good LD round

Overview: Like a real overview which represents the interactions that happened in the round with a narrative. Challenge yourself to have it be more than a summary of what your case is.

Weighing: Like actual weighing. Extending your impact is great but you need to explain why your impact should be valued more compared to your opponents

1nr Card Drop: I see people spread as fast as possible through their speech and then just extend whatever their opponent did not respond too and think they won the round. I need some weight and explanation of the warrant from arguments to vote on them. When there isn't, my threshold for responding or weighing them is lower than the arguments you developed. Developing arguments is good and makes me value them more than your 17th apriori which has “big” implications in the round because your opponent conceded it.

Truth vs Tech: I'm more tech. Basically that's it.

Tabula Rasa: I'm not. I will not tolerate racist, sexist, ableist, classist behavior. I also have strongly held beliefs of what debate should be to get better. That said if I think such behavior has occured I am more likely to stop the round and refer the issue to tab. What I won't do is vote someone down because your K says they are literally the devil for not being topical. I am more receptive to the argument that the argument is some "-ism" not the person. We are learners here and should educate and build people up.

Judge Intervention: This is a very tricky topic for me. So because in the debate space we generally agree that a judge should intervene if some racism, sexism, issue occurs yet however we don't think this when it comes to things like reproducing imperialist talking points. We don't typically weigh the reproduction of these dominant ideological norms as bad whereas only over racism and sexism is despite the fact that systems like imperialism harm far more people than an individual sexist or racist comment. So I think when people say "no judge intervention" that doesn't make alot of sense because we have decided as a community that we won't tolerate some things. So therefore I think a good approach to this (not the best) is that judge intervention should be considered when the debaters says it is necessary as a top shelf/layer argument and then for the opponent to argue why it shouldn't be, perhaps by arguing their idea of what they want the judge to do is not good. This for example should take place in the debate over the role of the ballot. In terms of judge intervention regarding "why did you weigh x argument y way" generally if I think its close it may simply come down to persuasiveness, the narrative, or may best guess.

Teach me something: Honestly this goes for debaters, coaches, and other judges. I want to learn and improve and be a positive force in the debate space. I love learning about new theories and concepts. As such it may be helpful to take the time to explain the mechanics of an argument without the internal jargon to maximize education.

PF in-depth prefs

Trad pf vs Circuit pf: It's weird that there is now a difference between trad and circuit/prog PF debate and I am not exactly a fan that its come to this. That said I prefer normal PF rounds over critical arguments as I don't think the format lends itself to progressive.

Theory: See LD prefs for opinions on theory.

Evidence: My evidence standards are a bit higher in PF due to frequent bad paraphrasing. I will likely review cards which are deemed critical in round during prep time. If I find that the card itself is misconstrued I will be annoyed and have a lower threshold for response to the arguments that rely on the card. That said I think there is a difference in making an argument which misconstrues the card rather than the card itself being misconstrued. That's just debate.

That's all folks.

Saumya singh Hire

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:20 PM PDT

Hi there! I’ve been involved in debate for quite a while— in Lincoln-Douglas, in Public Forum, and more years judging both events. My judging philosophy is pretty straightforward: I aim to reward strong argumentation, clear communication, and meaningful engagement with the debate topic. At the end of the round, I want to be able to weigh impacts and feel confident that the winning side gave me a clear reason to vote for them.

Rate of Delivery

When it comes to speaking speed, I’m flexible. I prefer a conversational pace because it tends to make arguments more persuasive and easier to follow. That said, if you want to go fast, I won’t hold it against you—as long as you’re clear. If I can’t understand what you’re saying or if your arguments get lost in a rapid delivery, they won’t make it onto my flow. Keep in mind: clarity is your responsibility, not mine.

Values and Criteria

Values and criteria are a hallmark of LD, but I don’t think they’re required in every round. If you do use a value/criterion framework, make it count. Show me how it ties into your case, frames the round, and helps me evaluate the impacts. If you don’t use one, that’s fine too—just make sure your framework is clear and gives me the tools I need to fairly judge the round. Either way, I care more about how you apply your framework to the actual arguments than whether you’ve included one for the sake of tradition.

Rebuttals and Voting Issues

Rebuttals are where you show me how you’re winning the debate. Whether you explicitly label "voting issues" or not isn’t a dealbreaker for me. What matters is that you’re crystallizing the key points of clash and making it clear how I should evaluate the round. In your final speeches, weigh the impacts—don’t just tell me you’re winning, show me why. Jargon like “extend,” “cross-apply,” or “turn” is totally fine, but make sure it’s being used to enhance clarity, not confuse the round.

How I Decide the Round

I vote based on who wins the most important arguments in the round. Strong impact analysis is absolutely critical here. Help me understand why your impacts matter more than your opponent’s and how they function within the round’s framework. I don’t assume either side is automatically correct—both aff and neg need offense. If neither side gives me clear offense, I’ll evaluate based on the risk of offense or presumption, depending on the circumstances.

Use of Evidence

I value evidence, but I don’t think it’s always necessary. Logical, analytical arguments can be just as powerful as empirical evidence when presented well. That said, if you’re going to use evidence, use it effectively. Don’t just cite a card and move on—engage with it. Highlight contradictions, call out weaknesses, and explain how it supports your case. I appreciate debaters who treat evidence as part of their argumentation, not just something to check off a list.

Flowing and Note-Taking

I take flowing seriously and keep a detailed record of every argument in the round. Organization and signposting are really important to me—if I can’t figure out where an argument belongs on my flow, it’s going to be much harder for me to evaluate it. Make your arguments clear and distinct, and don’t expect me to connect the dots for you.

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, I’m a pretty flexible judge. I don’t have strict preferences about how you structure your case or present your arguments. My main focus is on clarity, clash, and impacts. If you can explain why your arguments matter, how they interact with your opponent’s, and why they ultimately outweigh, you’re in a strong position to win my ballot.

P.S. I know these kinds of paradigms can feel a little formulaic, but if you take one thing away from mine, it’s this: do what works best for you . Clear impacts, solid argumentation, and a little bit of persuasion will take you far!

ADAM Smith Hire

Flori Song Claremont

Rina Song Eticko Debate Academy

Last changed on Wed November 13, 2024 at 9:08 AM PDT

I debated PF for three years in high school as VDA MS. IIRC, had four career TOC bids, broke first at NSDA Nationals, and champed some small to mid-size tournaments before. I also did a bit of CNDF, BP, and Worlds. I'm currently a junior at the University of Toronto so I'm probably not too much older than a lot of you. Add me to the email chainrinasong699@gmail.com.

General:

Tech > truth (to a reasonable extent, ex. I won't buy racism good). The more frivolous the argument, the lower my threshold for responses.

Assertive is good :) Aggressive is no good :(

Nothing __ist or ___phobic.

If there is no offense generated by either side by the end of the round, I default the team that wins the weighing.

Speed is fine, but don't spread. If you think you're going to go super fast then send a speech doc. Also, don't sacrifice clarity for speed. Enunciate. (does nobody read this part of my paradigm??? please i’m begging u. enunciate. you shouldn’t be gasping for breath and mumbling incoherently when your wpm isn’t even that high)

Time yourselves. I don't want to have to intervene during a round. I will be timing, however, and if you go over time I'm probably not going to cut you off (unless it’s egregious) but I WILL stop flowing.

In-Round:

Front Half:

A few well warranted arguments are a lot better than a bunch of blippy ones. I'll take a well warranted response with no evidence over a blippy warantless piece of evidence any day.

Don't disad dump in second rebuttal.

Anything not responded to by second rebuttal is conceded (so yes, you need to frontline in second rebuttal).

Back Half:

Please signpost. Please. Also, off-time road maps are cool but doing an off-time road map is not a replacement for signposting.

Weigh.

Don't go for too much.

Anything you want to win on in FF must also be in summary. That includes responses, frontlines, and preferably weighing (absolutely no new weighing in second FF).

Cross:

I will be paying attention but I won't be flowing cross, so if any concessions are made, make sure to bring it up in a speech.

If you're rude it will affect your speaks. Be nice.

Progressive Debate:

I'm not too familiar with theory/K’s/etc. When I did debate in high school, my partner basically wrote all my responses to any progressive arguments for me lol so I think that tells you all you need to know. Run at your own risk.

If you have any questions before or after the round, feel free to ask!

follow @sirhowell.affirms and like your favorite post for a +0.5 speaks boost :)

Isabella tang Daystar Academy

Last changed on Mon July 22, 2024 at 7:45 PM EDT

Experience: I have been an active member of the debate community for the past 5+ years. I spent the first 3 of those years as a Public Forum Debater and the rest 2+ as a judge and a coach. On top of that, I have had some experience in other public speaking events including but not limited to Original Oratory and Model United Nations.

Judging Philosophy: 1) The most important one is that I firmly believe that the debaters should be 100% responsible in helping me understand the content of their case and blocks. It is NOT my responsibility to have any prior understanding of any resolution and debaters should not expect me to, either. This means, in order for you to win a voting issue, you have to explicitly tell me why and cite any relevant information that was discussed in a round. 2) Pay very close attention to the arguments mentioned in a round. You are responsible for reminding me what is the most important information in the round. If your opponents have dropped an argument, I expect you to take full advantage of it. 3) So long as an argument can be explained with logic and backed up with credible information, I will buy it. 4) K/Ts are permissible, but please bear in mind that the public forum debate was supposed to be a kind of debate that the general public can understand. Your K/T should also follow that philosophy. 5) Be careful with the language you use. Do not use any degrading or offensive language when describing an argument from your opponents. 6) I will not tolerate any abusive behavior. Debate should be an inclusive environment and participants should at all times hold themselves accountable to that standard.

Flowing: I prefer to flow in writing and I take flowing very seriously. My decision will be made based on flowing so the debater should be very clear with their speech delivery and structuring.

Speed: I am generally ok with speed but I prefer a paced delivery.

Roadmaps: General roadmaps are permissible. I expect it to be done within one or two sentences. Anything longer than that will be crossed off on my flow. No specific argument should be mentioned in roadmap and will thus be crossed off on my flow.

Frameworks: If you are going to introduce a framework, you should be prepared to explain it, extend it and debate it. More often than not I find debaters introducing one but not being able to extend it consistently.

Observations and Definitions: They go along the lines of frameworks. But for these two, debaters should also help me understand why they are essential for your case.

Evidence Check: I will allow it in moderation, but I expect all checked evidence to be addressed in speeches. If a piece of evidence was checked but not addressed, I will deduct your speaker points.

Crossfires: I listen to crossfires though I will not always flow it. I will sometimes highlight arguments or evidence that catch my attention on my flow. However, you should still highlight any information you want to me to put on my flow. I expect any crossfire to be a civilized discussion in which both sides take turns asking and answering question, which means absolutely no yelling or delivering a monologue of speech.

Summary: I expect summary speeches to focus primarily on addressing voting issues. This means your main focus should be put on giving me an overview of the previous speeches and crossfires, identifying your winning arguments and explaining them to me. Conduct weighing when necessary. If there was any confusion you need to address, summary is the time to do it. Only when you have explained all aforementioned information should you proceed with further rebuttal.

Final Focus: I do appreciate some pathos in Final Focus, though you should not rely on it to win a Final Focus. You should approach this with a similar strategy as you would Summary: identify the most important winning arguments and go over each of them; you need to present your terminal impact in this round during Final Focus and conduct any weighing when necessary.

Speaker Points: My average speaker points is 26, but it might vary from tournament to tournament. When allocating points I tend to follow the six general ideas (analysis, reasoning, rebuttal, crossfire, evidence and delivery). Any misconduct in a round will result in deducting points (i.e. not addressing a piece of checked evidence, rude behavior, offensive language, etc).

Ogundare Tobi Nova Institute

Hassan Usman Hire

Last changed on Sun March 3, 2024 at 6:23 AM EDT

I have a helpless artifice for researching the written and dedicate substantial hours a week to develop my speaking and judging prowess. I have coached and judged different types of debate and speech events within the past four years. I was a Co-Coach of Faculty of Education Debate Club, University of Ilorin, 2022/2023 and 2023/2024Academic Session, and Public Speaking Coach of the University of Ilorin Debating Community, 2023/2024 AcademicSession. I am an alumnus of the University Of Ilorin Debating Community (UILDC).

Email Chain: usmanaduragbemi77@gmail.com

Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, Parliamentary, Congress, Speech Events, Etc:

Remember, it's not all about speed. Focus on persuading me and showcasing the importance of your arguments. Keep it engaging and add some flair. When it comes to theory arguments, make sure they're valid and not just trendy.
I'm not a calculator, so it's not just about winning lots of arguments. Persuade me with communication and style.

Here are some key points to remember:

1. Use signposts and roadmaps to guide your speech. Make sure to address your opponent's case and organize your arguments effectively.

2. Establish a framework early on and explain why it should be preferred. If there are multiple frameworks, choose one and provide a clear rationale.

3. When extending arguments, go beyond taglines. Explain the warrants and the importance of your impacts. Summary extensions are crucial for the Final Focus.

4. Paraphrasing evidence is okay, but make sure to explain its meaning and relevance to the round. Extend evidence in later speeches.

5. Focus on creating a strong narrative. Narrow down the key contention-level impact story and address your opponent's contentions effectively.

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.

Some Adjudication/speaking Experience/Achievements:

Tabroom:
1. Vancouver Debate Academy Spring Tournament, 2024, Canadian Format, Chaired 4/4
prelim-rounds, Open finals Panel.
2. Georgetown Fall, 2024, Public Forum, Judged 7 Prelim rounds, 2 Elimination rounds.
3. Harvard Debate International Tournaments, 2024, Public Forum, Chaired 4/4
prelim-rounds, Semi-finals and Finals Panel.
4. Philhistorian Middle School and High School Invitational, 2024, Elementary Impromptu,
Chaired 3/3 prelim-rounds, Open Finals Panel.
5. Winter Championship, 2024, Elementary Spontaneous Argument (ESPAR), Chaired 3/3
prelim-rounds, Finals Panel.
6. Winter Wrap-Up, 2024, Canadian format, Chaired 2/2 Junior Varsity in-rounds and 1/2
Novice prelim-rounds.
7. Harvard Debate High School Tournament, 2024, Online, Congress, chaired 4/5 in-rounds.
8. Yale Invitational, 2023, Online, Public Forum, Chaired 6/5 prelim-rounds, Panelled Junior
Varsity Triple, Quarterfinals, and Finals.
9. Dempsey-Cronin Memorial Invitational, 2023, Online, Lincoln Douglas, Chaired 4/5
prelim-rounds, Panelled High school Octofinals and Quarterfinals, Panelled Middle school
Semifinals.
10. November Topic Tournament, 2023, Public Forum, Chaired 3/3 prelim-rounds, no
outrounds.

Non-Tabroom:
1. All Nigerian Youths Debating Championship, 2024, Chaired 2/7 in-rounds, Novice
Semi-finals Panel, Open Finals chair.
2. Royalty Pact Debating Academy Pre-Pan African Universities Debating Championship,
2023, Chaired 4/5 in-rounds, Open Quarter-finals, Semi-finals, and Finals Panel.
3. Lagos Debate Open, 2023, Chaired 4/5 in-rounds, Open Semi-finals Panel.
4. All Nigerian Universities Debate Championship 2023, Chaired 7/9 in-rounds, Open
Quarterfinals Panel.
5. National Novice Tournament, 2023, Chaired 2/5 in-rounds, Semi-finals Panel.
6. Speech Craft, 2023, Chaired 5/5 in-rounds, Semi-finals Chair.
7. Pre- Emirate Verbal Combat, 2023, Semi-Finals Panelist.
8. All Nigerian Youths Debating Championship, 2023, Nigeria, Beat Judge..
9. University Of Ilorin Emirate Verbal Combat, 2022, Chaired 5/5 in-rounds, Finals chair.
10. Hearts Afire Open 2021, Chaired all in rounds, Grand finals Panelist.

FORENSICS:
1. Judged middle school impromptu, NOF Birch Invitational, 2024.
2. Judged High School LD, Middle School SPAR, Middle School Impromptu, NOF OAK
INVITATIONAL, 2024.
3. Judged College IPDA, College Impromptu, NOF Elm Invitational, 2024.

Speaking Achievements
1. Word War VI, 2024, Overall Best Public Speaker, Semifinalist.
2. West African Universities Debating Championships, 2024, Overall Best Public Speaker,
Semifinalist.
3. Vamidzo (A Pre Ama Atta Public Speaking Tournament) 2024, Finalist, 1st Runner Up.
4. Mashariki Debate Open, 2024, Quarterfinalist.
5. All Nigerian Universities Debating Championship, 2024, Public Speaking Finalist.
6. All Nigerian Youths Debating Championship, 2024, Public Speaking Finalist.
7. Kampala Speech open, 2024, Public Speaking Semifinalist.
8. Hearts Affire, 2024, Octofinalist, 10th best speaker.
9. University of Ilorin Emirate Verbal Combat 2020, Partial Semi-Finalist.

10. Battleground Pro-am, 2021, Finalist.

Vikram Valame Hire

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 1:18 PM PDT

Chain: vik.valame@gmail.com

I debated with Jared Shirts at Gunn High School. Went for policy arguments. We have many of the same thoughts on debate.

Am at Georgetown University.

Was at Northeastern University, affiliated with Harvard.

Please debate how you would like, I would love to judge a debate that genuinely changed how I view certain arguments. The only exception is “suicide good”, which I will evaluate as false. This is not open for debate.

Topicality: Please explain why your interp solves offense on both sides. If you somehow find empirics or studies for why your interpretation is better for the debate, I will weigh them far more heavily than unwarranted assertions about a hypothetical topic. I tend to view reasonability as a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for voting on procedurals.

Counterplans: Truthfully, I fail to understand why many Counterplans read in Debate actually negate either the resolution or the plan. I will be sympathetic to a negation theory argument if the affirmative team makes it. Of course, there are some good arguments for why neg fiat is necessary…

Disadvantages: 0% risk exists. 100% risk exists. Unless you win that it doesn’t… Please explain the entire story of the disadvantage in either the block or 2NR so I know what I am voting on. “Try-or-die” is an exceptionally persuasive argument if you make it. If “turns case” isn’t intuitive, a card helps a ton.

Kritiks: I wish I was well versed in literature, but I am not. Please explain your theory or thesis in a way that I can repeat to you all in the RFD. Feel free to go for fiat bad, fiat good only for you, or any other interp. I find arguments based around criticism of durable fiat quite good.

Kaffs: Will vote either way. The affirmative either needs to go for a counter-interp or win impact turns that outweigh the entirety of the negative team’s impacts, unless you win some alternative frame through which I should view procedurals.

You also don’t have to read FW every round!I think that many Kritikal affirmatives are vulnerable to impact turns and presumption arguments because they expect to gain most of their offense by impact turning T.

Case: Presumption exists, impact turns are great. If the entire 2NR is case, I will give you lots of speaker points. Even if you read disadvantages, I find that most policy 1ACs have impacts so tenuous that a counterplan is unnecessary for the disadvantage to outweigh. Just make sure you answer try-or-die!

Notes: Jokes are good in moderation. If you explain why any organization Jared Shirts works at is bad, I will smile upon you. Any team that went for silly but oddly persuasive T-“in the United States” arguments on the water topic will be voted down. Feel free to address me as "Vikram", "you", "Judge", or "Your Honor"

Stephani Valentina SD Academy

Pranjal Verma Hire

Arlena w Cicero Project

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 4:49 PM CST

JUDGE PARADIGM

NAME: ARLENA NJOKI WAITHANJI

AGE: 23 YEARS

CURRENT OCCUPANCY: UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT.

DEBATE ETIQUETTE

Personally, I prefer a moderate-paced speaker as I feel that this allows the debater to clearly articulate their points and guarantees them that all their points are heard by the judges. The debaters should also be confident and explain their arguments clearly. During the debate, certain virtues and manners should be observed. The debaters should not be aggressive towards their opponents because as much as this is a competition, it is also an opportunity for the debaters to learn. In this regard, the debating environment should therefore be calm, and everyone accorded the time and space allocated to them to present their motion without disruption.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

During the debate I employ the format of establishing what claim the debater presented, their justification for the claim and the impact of the claim. In addition to this I look at the logic plus the evidence presented by the debaters to establish who the winner is. Concerning impact, I encourage students to provide justification and demonstrate feasibility. This is because some students might present quantitative data without explaining the mechanism or providing a link to how these outcomes will be achieved.

I would also like to convey to the students the importance of clearly convincing me, as the judge, about what they mean and why their arguments are unique. It is not my role to interpret their claims in any way. They should be persuasive and make a compelling case for why they should win the various contentions they are championing. Additionally, I suggest using crossfire to challenge opponents and attempt to weaken their arguments by addressing any loopholes they might have. Failure to do so only strengthens the opponent's position.

SPEAKER POINTS

When I am allocating speaker points, they vary in different aspects. I consider the English proficiency, manner of delivery, articulation, and overall presentation. Moreover, I assess how well students respond to questions and engage with their opponents during crossfire. In addition to penalizing the use of abusive language and intentional falsification of evidence, I also take into account the organization and clarity of their arguments, as well as their ability to adapt to unexpected challenges or counterarguments. These factors collectively contribute to the overall evaluation and scoring of each participant.

Moderate speaking is preferred. Given that English may not be the first language for many students, clarity could become an issue. Therefore, I advise students to speak moderately to ensure that all their points are heard clearly by both the judge and their opponents. This helps avoid situations I've encountered before where the opposing team asks for a repetition of contentions. However, if you are confident in your pronunciation, then a quicker pace is acceptable to me.

I am eagerly looking forward to learning, listening to, and interacting with all the teams in the debate.

Jasmine Wang Eticko Debate Academy

Shufang Wei Potomac Debate Academy

Max Wiessner Hire

Last changed on Thu October 17, 2024 at 11:16 AM PDT

Max Wiessner (they/them/elle)

Put me on the email chain! imaxx.jc@gmail.com

email chain >>>>> speech drop

I flow on paper (adjust your speed accordingly, allow for pen/flow time, and prioritize clarity over speed).

I'll flow what I hear and refer to the doc for evidence if necessary

*****

0 tolerance policy for in-round antiblackness, racism, queerphobia, misogyny, etc.

I have and will continue to intervene here when I feel it is necessary.

*****

About me:

5th-year policy debater at CSUF, started as a college novice (also did IEs). I've coached policy, LD, PF, and MSPDP, currently coaching circuit LD & trad LD.

Debate is about competing theorizations of the world, which means all debates are performances, and you are responsible for what you do/create in this round/space.
More than 5 off creates shallow debates & becomes a game of technical concessions that are frustrating to evaluate. clash/vertical spread >>>>>>

coaches and friends who influence how I view debate: DSRB, LaToya Green, Cat Smith, Kwudjwa Osei, Travis Cochran, Beau Larsen, Tay Brough

Some thoughts on specifics:

Policy v K: I generally think more time should be spent on FW, how and why should I (not) evaluate the AFF?

The link debate- link analysis is key on both sides, specific/contextualized links are best.

The alt debate- If ur going for the alt, help me visualize what I'm voting for before the 2NR

K v K: love kvk debate, creating an organized story is important (especially in LD bc time constraints)

I consider myself well-read in many different areas of critical theory, I wanna know how those theories apply to this debate and this AFF/NEG position. I'm here for it. Just explain

FW v K AFFs: I’m pretty split on these debates. I think in-round impacts and performances matter just as much as the legitimacy ppl tend to give to fiated plan texts.

I tend to prefer the counter-interp route (it's easier for me to compare models in my head). I'm not unwilling to vote for the impact turn. I just need a deeper & clearer explanation in these debates

I have a pretty low bar for what I consider "topical", (procedural) fairness isn’t an auto-voter for me. I love creative counter-interps of the res, but the AFF has to win why their approach to the topic is good on a solvency AND educational level (that means clash and education are more persuasive to me).
tldr: You need to prove why clash generated by the content of your stasis point is good/important/necessary

If I’m judging PF:

I think the best way to adapt to me in the back as a LD/Policy guy is clear signposting and emphasizing your citations bc the evidence standards are so different between these events

also… final focus is so short, it should focus on judge instruction, world-to-world comparison, and impact calc

Yiwen Wu McLean High School

Ethan Yan BL Debate HS

Allison Yi BC Academy

Marc Yoon BC Academy

Akira Yoshiyama BC Academy

Hui Zhou Liangyi Youth Leadership

Michael Zhu Liangyi Youth Leadership

Login to Tabroom

Harvard National Speech and Debate Tournament

2024 — Cambridge, MA/US

PF (Online Divisions) Paradigm List

Judges