I'm a career coach who has coached/judged WSD at nationals for several years now. I try to judge the debate on what was said. I am looking for a theme or team line. I appreciate it when debaters simplify the debate in rebuttal speeches. I expect emotional appeals designed to make me feel something in and amongst all the arguments presented. I also find the team line useful because it helps anchor the story that unfolds in the debate. World schools is a conversation. It's about turn-taking, respect, composure, and a limited amount of arguments...In other words, the best 'conversationalists' should accrue enough points for their team to win. I enjoy the format of WSD and I appreciate how it is different than other styles of debate. Most debates are close at nationals; just don't let the line-by-line overwhelm the pressing need for you to make me feel something. I'm a former policy debater...so i'll get the arguments on the flow. I just think that the 'face' we create in addition to our standard offense/defense is super important in WSD because it really humanizes the debate for me and helps me see and feel things that I might not see or feel in other forms of debate.

Pronouns: HE/HIM

if you want to address me call me judge or Robert I'm cool with either

I have been doing policy debate and extemp as well as congress for 3 years I am a very chill judge and there is not much you can do to make me mad or upset you can see how I feel about certain arguments under this

speed: go as fast as you want if I have the doc so send it to me BUT DO NOT SPREAD ON ANALYTICS OR EXTENSIONS

I will not extend anything for you so if you don't extend your case and the neg says this I will vote neg if it doesn't get extended and that gets called out so flow well so you can catch drops

email : rarroyo451@gmail.com

policy debate

da's: I want disads to have good links. I'm cool if it is generic but I will be more lenient to the aff on delinking from the argument. explain the link story really well and internal link as well. I want a lot of impact calc from the aff and neg and impact calc is something I use heavily when deciding which impact to go for. I don't have a preferred impact. I can be persuaded on any impact

cp's: I want them to have a very clear net benefit. I am open to the aff reading cp abusive if they want but will have a very high threshold on abuse

Topicality: If you run this as a time suck I honestly don't care but if you do I will hold you to a higher threshold on abuse I want abuse to be proved in round and I do not have a bias on reasonability vs. competing interps, it just depends on the debate. Obviously, the most important thing in these debates is the interpretations. Topicality always needs to have impacts.

Kritiks: Kritiks are fine, but I am far less familiar with the literature than you remember that. Obviously in these debates the more specific the link the better, but no matter the specificity of the link please contextualize it to the aff. The better the link the easier this is, but if you read a generic link it is going to take more contextualization, but that is your time, not mine. Your links should be to the plan and not the status sqou and aff teams should be quick to call out neg teams whose links are to the sqou. I believe that long overviews that explain the Kritik are probably okay, and for me probably important. Kicking the alternative is fine but you need to give me a good explanation on how my voting aff does anything without an alt.

Evidence: I will probably be reading evidence during the round, but I believe it is up to the debater to be doing comparative evidence analysis during the round. That being said my reading of the evidence will have not have any weight on my decision unless both teams make it a point of contention. It is not my job as a judge to vote against a team for reading bad evidence it is your job to tell me their evidence is bad and why that's important.

disclosure: if you are a massive school with tons and tons of backfiles I won't even evaluate it but if not then I err on the side of the aff and hold a uber high threshold of abuse

Speaks: I know what it is like to go 3-1 and then not break because the judge gave you 25 speaks so I won't the lowest I will go is 27 normally but I will go to the lowest I can if you say anything RACIST HOMOPHOBIC TRANSPHOIBIC XENOPHOBIC SEXIST (don't be an incel) OR IF YOU ARE JUST GROSSLY RUDE TO YOUR OPPONENT(treat them like humans)

LD: im getting better at trad ld but If I was you I wouldn't

Greenhill '25 (2A)

bachun25@gmail.com

you will be a more successful debater (and get higher speaks) if you show me you are flowing, clashing/engaging in line by line, having fun, and showing respect to other debaters. I will not tolerate any discrimination of any kind.

Congress:

it's a debate event so don't make sure to both refute + weigh/extend. Delivery is p important but content will win you the round. I love hearing good rhetoric and impacts! Please give time specific speeches (i.e. sponsor explains the bill; crystal sums up + extends the debate)

Extemp - I love hearing new info! If you give me a new perspective on the topic, that's really amazing. Make sure to clearly answer the question and back it with evidence. I don't really care about the amount of sources at MS level; just give me more than 3

My judging philosophy is first built on the approach that debaters define the debate. This means I generally do not have any predisposition against anything within the context of the debate. Hence, I do NOT push an agenda. The arguments presented before me are to be engaged by both sides and analysis should be given whereby I should either reject or accept those arguments. This means arguments for or against should be well developed and structured logically. There needs to be a clear framework, but this is only the first level. Impacts and disadvantages need to fit within this framework. They need to be developed and consistent within the framework.

If there is one thing I do not like, blip arguments. These are essentially glorified tag lines that have no analysis behind them, where then a debater claims a drop of this 'argument' becomes a voter for them. For me: no analysis = no argument thus is not a voter. However, if within the context of the debate both debaters do this they lose the right to complain about me intervening. So, take heed, do this and I will allow myself to insert how these blips should be pieced together and the analysis behind them.

There needs to be clash. Far too often debaters do not really analyze. Generally, people view good debates where the flow shows responses to everything. I view this as a fallacy. There should be analysis as to how the arguments interact with each other in regards to the line by line debate and hopefully build a bigger view of the entire debate. Again, it is the debater's job to fine tune how everything pieces together. Specifically, I prefer hearing voters that are in some way intertwined versus a bunch of independent voters. Yet, though, I prefer intertwined voters it does not mean independent voters could not subvert or outweigh a good story.

Things I have voted for AND against

K - I actually like a good K debate. However, I do warn debaters that often I see people run K's they have no reason running because they themselves do not really understand them. Further, as a theme, debaters assume I am as familiar with the authors as they are. Not true. Rather, I feel it imperative that the position of K be well articulated and explained. Many debaters, read a stock shell that lacks analysis and explanation. NEW - Alts need to be clear as to what they will cause and what the world of the alt will look like. Nebulous Revolutions will not sway me, because you will need to have some solvency that the revolution will lead to the actual implementation of the new form of thought.

counter plans - I have no problem with these in the world of LD.

Topicality - I generally stand within the guidelines of reasonability. Muddy the waters and that’s what I will likely default to.

Role of the Ballot - At its heart I think the ROB is a paradigm argument or more simply a criterion argument so that even if one on face wins it does not guarantee a win because the opposite side can in the venue of the debate meet the criterion or ROB. However, the ROB I tend not to like are ones devolve the debate into pre fiat and post fiat debate. I tend towards post fiat worlds in close debates.

RVI - Again this less so, an RVI for seems to be justified within the context of some blatant abuse. As an analogy I have to see the smoking gun in the offenders hand. If it not clear I will side with a standard model. To date I have not voted on an RVI as of 1/05/2024

Understand, I honestly do approach all arguments as being justifiable within the confines of a debate. However, arguments I will on face reject are arguments whose sole objective (as a course or an objective for gain) is to oppress, murder, torture or destroy any class or classes of people. That is to say you know what you are doing and you are doing it on purpose.

I'd say that the realm of debate is for students to engage and craft. As I am no longer a competitor my bias, if it exist, should only intercede when debaters stop looking at human beings as genuine but rather as some abstract rhetoric.

Feel free to ask me some questions. but understand I'm not here to define what will win me. Good well structured argumentation that actually engages the other side are the types of debates I find most interesting. It's your world you push the paradigm you want. My voting for it or against it should not be interpreted as my support of the position beyond the confines of the debate.

Personal Narratives - I am not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.

Communication - I believe in civility of debate. I am seeing an increasingly bad trend of students cursing in debates. I fundamentally, think High School debate is about learning to argue in an open forum with intellectual honesty and civility. The HS debate format is not one like private conversations between academics. I reject any belief that the competitive nature of the debate is like a professional sport. Cursing is lazy language and is a cheap attempt to be provocative or to fain emphasis. Thus, do not curse in front of me as your judge I will automatically drop you a point. Also, most people don’t know how to curse. It has its place just not in HS debate.

So what about cards that use curse words? Choose wisely, is the purpose because it is being descriptive of reporting actual words thrown at persons such as racial slurs. I will not necessarily be bothered by this, however, if it is the words of the actual author, I advise you to choose a different author as it is likely using it to be provocative versus pursing any intellectual honesty.

I do not have a have a problem with spreading. However, I do not prompt debaters for clarity as it is the debaters responsibility to communicate. Further, I think prompting is a form of coaching and gives an advantage that would not exist otherwise. If on the off chance I do prompt you (more likely in a virtual world) You will be deducted 1 speaker point for every time I do it. If the spread causes a technical issue with my speakers - I will prompt once to slow it down without penalty, only once.

NEW: 1/29/21

My email is erick.berdugo@gpisd.org and erickberdugo01@gmail.com for email chains. I am now putting myself part of the email chain due to virtual tournaments and to help overcome technical issues regarding sound. However, please understand I will NOT read along. I have it there for clarification if a audio issue arises during the speech. I still believe debaters should be clear when speaking and that speaking is still part of the debate.

I will automatically down a debater that runs an intentionally oppressive position. IE kill people because the world sucks and it’s bad to give people hope. However, if a person runs a position that MIGHT link to the death of thousands is not something I consider intentional.

NEW - 1/29 7:30PM Central Time

DISCLOSURE - Once parings come out. If you are going to make contact with your opponent requesting disclosure you need to CC me on the email chain: erick.berdugo@gpisd.org and erickberdugo01@gmail.com. Unless I am part of the request I will NOT evaluate the validity of the disclosure inside the round. If you do not read my paradigm and you run disclosure and your opponent does read this. They can use this as evidence to kick it directly and I will. This means they do not have to answer any of the shell.

I expect folks to be in the virtual debate room 15 minutes prior to the debate round. I especially expect this if a flip for sides has to be done. We as a community need to be more respectful of peoples time and of course from a practical matter allows an ability to solve technical issues which may arise.

NEW UPADATE 2/11/2022

Evidence - So, folks are inserting graphs and diagrams as part of their cases. I have no issue with this. However, unless there is analysis in the read card portion or analysis done by the debater regarding the information on the graph, diagram, figure, chart etc. I will not evaluate it as offense or defense for the debater introducing these documents. Next, if you do introduce it with analysis, it better match what you are saying. Next, as a scientist I am annoyed with graphs using solid lines - scientist use data points as the point actually represents collected data. A solid line suggest you have collected an infinite amount data points (ugh). The only solid line on graphs deemed acceptable are trend lines, usually accompanied with an equation, which serves as a model for an expected value for areas for which actual data does not exist.

Special Notes:

You are welcome to time yourself. However, I am the official time keeper and will not allow more than a 5 second disparity.

When you say you are done prepping I expect you are sending the document and will begin with a couple of seconds once your opponent has confirmed reception of the document. This means you have taken your sip of water and your timer is set.

COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE ROUND - I understand when debating virtually where one is set up is not always going to be an ideal situation. However, one should not be communicating within anyone other than ones own partner. There should be zero communication with someone not in the debate. This means those chat boxes need to be off. I understand there is no way to police this situation, however, please remember it looks poorly and you never want to have doubt cast upon your ethical behavior. Also, its just disrespectful.

Last updated 2/11/2022 6:23 PM - Most of the changes are due to poor grammar.

Berdugo

Jane Boyd

School: Grapevine HS - Interim Director of Debate and Speech

Email: janegboyd79@gmail.com (for case/evidence sharing)

School affiliation/s – Grapevine HS

Years Judging/Coaching - 39

Years of Experience Judging any Speech/Debate Event 39

Order of Paradigms LD, PFD, World Schools, Policy (scroll down)

I am NSDA-certified in all debate and speech events.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Lincoln Douglas Debate

A good debate is a good debate. Remember that trying to be cutting-edge does NOT make for a good debate by itself. While I appreciate innovation, I hate tricks for the sake of tricks and theories used as a strategy. I prefer topic-based arguments. Keep that in mind.

Framework/Values/Criteria/Standards/Burdens

Standards, criteria, framework, and/or burdens are the same thing - these are mechanisms for determining who wins the debate. If a value is used, it needs to be defended throughout the case and not simply as an afterthought. The framework of the debate should not be longer than the rest of the case. Unless it is necessary to make the framework clear, cut to the chase and tell me what is acceptable and unacceptable, but don't spend 2 1/2 minutes on something that should take just a few sentences to make clear. I want a substantive debate on the topic, not an excessive framework or theory. Note the word excessive. I am not stupid and usually get it much quicker than you think. In the debate, resolve the issue of standard and link it to the substantive issues of the round, then move on.

Evidence and Basic Argumentation:

The evidence adds credibility to the arguments of the case; however, I don't want to just hear you cite sources without argumentation and analysis of how it applies to the clash in the debate. I wouldn't say I like arguments that are meant to confuse and say absolutely nothing of substantive value. I am fine with philosophy, but I expect you to explain and understand the philosophies you are applying to your case or arguments. A Kritik is nothing new in LD. Traditional LD, by nature, is perfect, but I recognize the change that has occurred. I accept plans, DAs, counter plans, and theory (when there is a violation - not as the standard strategy.) Theory, plans, and counter plans must be run correctly - so make sure you know how to do it before you run it in front of me.

Flow and Voters:

I think that the AR has a tough job and can often save time by grouping and cross-applying arguments, please make sure you are clearly showing me the flow where you are applying your arguments. I won't cross-apply an argument to the flow if you don't tell me to. I try not to intervene in the debate and only judge based on what you are telling me and where you are telling me to apply it. Please give voters; however, don't give 5 or 6. You should be able to narrow the debate down to critical areas. If an argument is dropped, then explain the importance or relevance of that argument. Don't just give me the "it was dropped, so I win the argument." I may not buy that it is a crucial argument; you must tell me why it is crucial in this debate.

Presentation:

I can flow very well. Slow down, especially in the virtual world. The virtual world is echoing and glitchy. Unless words are clear, I won't flow the debate. Speed for the sake of speed is not a good idea.

Kritik:

I have been around long enough to see Kritik's arguments' genesis. I have seen them go from bad to worse and then good in the policy. I think K's arguments are in a worse state in LD now. Kritik is absolutely acceptable IF it applies to the resolution and, specifically, the case being run in the round. I have the same expectation here as in policy the "K" MUST have a specific link. "K" arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of generic Kritik, which questions whether we exist and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate. Kritik must give an alternative other than "think about it." Most LDs ask me to take any action with a plan or an objective - a K needs to do the same thing. That said, I will listen to the arguments, but I have a very high threshold for the bearer to meet before I vote on a "K" in LD.

Theory:

I have a very high threshold of acceptance of theory in LD. There must be a straightforward abuse story. Also, coming from a policy background - it is essential to run the argument correctly. For example having a violation, interpretation, standards, and voting issues on a Topicality violation is essential. Also, please know the difference between topicality and extra-tropical. Learning what non-unique really means is essential. Theory for the sake of a time suck is silly and won't lead me to vote on it at the end. I want to hear substantive debate on the topic, not just a generic framework or theory. RVI's: Not a fan. Congratulations you are topical or met a minimum of your burden I guess? It's not a reason for me to vote, though, unless you have a compelling reason.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Public Forum Debate

I am more of a traditionalist on PFD. I don't like fast PFD. The time constraints don't allow it. There are no plans or counter plans. Disadvantages can be run, but more traditionally, without calling them disadvantages.

Basic debate principles - claim, warrant, and IMPACT must be clearly explained. Direct clash and clear signposting are essential. WEIGH or compare impacts. Tell me your "story" and why I should vote for your side of the resolution.

I have experience with every type of debate, so words like link cross-apply and drop are okay.

The summary and final focus should be used to start narrowing the debate to the most important issues with a direct comparison of impacts and worldview

I flow - IF you share cases, put me on the email chain, but I won't look at it until the end and ONLY if evidence or arguments are challenged. Speak with the assumption that I am flowing, not reading.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

WORLD SCHOOL DEBATE

I have experience and success coaching American-style Debates. World Schools Debate quickly became my favorite. Every year that I coached WSD, I coached teams to elimination rounds at local, state, and NSDA National tournaments. I judge WSD regularly and often.

The main thing to know is that I follow the norms of WSD (to which you all have access). I don't want WSD Americanized.

How would you describe WS Debate to someone else?

WSD is a classic debate—the type that folks think about when they think about debates. It is much more based on logic and classic arguments, with some evidence but not much evidence. It is NOT an American-style debate.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate?

I flow each speech.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

I look at both. Does the principle have merit, and the practical is the tangible explanation? I don’t think the practical idea has to be solved, but is it a good idea?

The WS Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall scores, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy?

Strategy is argument selection in speeches 2, 3, and 4. In 1st speech, it is how the case is set up and does it give a good foundation for other speeches to build.

WS Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker was going too fast?

The style mostly, but if it is really fast then maybe strategy as well.

WS Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

The argument that makes the most sense, is extended throughout the debate, and does it have the basics of claim, warrant, and impact?

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Models are simply an example of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

Models and countermodels are simply examples of how the resolution would work. Which model is best explained, extended, and directly compared? If those are even, which one makes the most intuitive sense to me?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy Debate:

A good Debate is a good debate. I flow from the speech not from the document. I do want to be on the email chain though. I prefer good substantive debate on the issues. While Ks are okay if you are going to read them, make sure they are understandable from the beginning. Theory - the same. If you think you might go for it in the end, make sure they are understandable from the beginning.

Be aware, that on virtual, sometimes hard to understand rapid and unclear speech (it is magnified on virtual). Make necessary adjustments.

Links should be specific and not generic. This is everything from K to DA.

The final speech needs to tell the story and compare worlds. Yes, line by line is important but treat me like a policymaker - tell me why your policy or no policy would be best.

Hi! My name is Eshaan, and I have been involved in the debate community for a while. I have some experience judging PF and LD.

Here are some pointers that I look for:

Be clear. If I have trouble understanding you, I will have trouble taking proper notes on your speech. Speaking fast is fine as long as you are clear and stay at a reasonable speed.

Be nice in the crossfire. This is a chance to poke holes in your opponent's arguments, but it is important to be respectful as this part of the round can easily get very heated.

Have a clear analysis. I try my best not to intervene in the round and only to vote on arguments made in the debate. I will be willing to vote on an argument that I may otherwise disagree with if you explain your side well. However, you must properly explain your arguments and why I should evaluate them with strong analysis.

Follow standard procedures. Try not to go overtime unless you are just finishing up a sentence. Do not go overtime with your in-round preparation time either. I may time parts of the round, but hold your opponents accountable.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask me before the round. Good luck!

ryandebate7@gmail.com

Hi, I'm Ryan. I debate for Plano West in Dallas, Texas and have been doing circuit LD for about two years now.

TLDR

— Tech > Truth, I'll vote on it if it's sufficiently warranted. It also must be extended and explained.

— I'm not a robot. You can go as fast as you want but you need to be super clear. Pen time and slowing down for tags would be greatly appreciated.

— I don't have any strong argumentative preferences. Out-tech your opponent and you'll win.

Will update this when I have to judge later.

Parent Judge - I need you to speak slowly on taglines and explain to me why you won in your rebuttals

If you want to go for extensive theory/kritiks/phil I won't understand - unless you think you can really explain this well to a lay judge, don't go for this

A little about me:

I am a 67-year-old woman with 6 kids from Utah and I hold conservative values I live in an RV and am constantly moving which is what I want the debate to look like!

Congress

Congress is a debate event, so I need to see DEBATE! This means clash, refutation, weighing, etc. Do not give your speeches like a speech, but give it like you're trying to persuade me to act upon it (basically, just be in debate mode :)!.

Also, any use of logical fallacies, especially ad hominem will affect your ranking in the round. Debaters tend to use slippery slope and over-generalization without realizing it, so if I catch this, it can also affect your ranking.

Give your speech correct to its time in the round. For example, if you give a mid-round speech, I expect to see refutation, and if it's at the end, then I expect to see weighing or crystalization. I love to see strong rhetoric, but not to the point where it's a stretch (empty rhetoric). IF YOU ARE A SPONSOR PLEASE EXPLAIN THE LEGISLATION!!!!!!!!!!!

Extras:

- Please do not re-hash arguments as this is redundant.

- Evidence is very important to me; make sure it's applicable to your argument and is up to date/a reliable source/ unbiased. (Do NOT try making stuff up, I will know if you will :) )

- Just because your louder does not make you right! (Ex: During questioning I should hear both people)

- I value good questioners and active congressers in the round!

- I do not care if you take the 10 second grace period (though I am not sure if MS is still using this as it was taken out of the TFA consitution)

- I like jokes and rhetoric but do not bother with empty jokes/rhetoric.

- Lastly, I strongly believe in the saying, that confidence is key. If you are confident with what you are saying, I will be too!

PS: If you are in MS and you give a crystal CORRECTLY* I will up you!

Interp

Use a strong voice with dynamics and facial expressions. Make sure you know your speech/performance very well. Screaming really loud annoys me and I don't think it adds anything to a quality performance.

Extemp

Preface: I have never competeted in Extemp but I know a lot about the event, given speeches, and seen some of the best in the country perform!

• I will check your evidence lol!
• Time is important
• Content should make sense, should be stromg, and I will up you if its unique
• I don't love puns for AGDS but i LOVE funny, good-sense jokes and strong rhetoric (stories)
• Fluency is important to me so speak slow
• in IX: the US never needs to be a dominant factor in your speech unless it's in the question
• Please add emotions to what you are talking about!
• If you manage to give 3 comprehensive points in 10 seconds I will give you the one (this is a joke)

Plano West 25

Email chain:taraerry@gmail.com

I do public forum so be patient if I'm judging a different event. I'll do my best to evaluate objectively, but I am less familiar with the technical aspects of some events

Don't make the debate space feel unsafe, people should feel safe and included*

Try to flip and pre-flow before the round, especially if you're flight 2

Ask any questions you have about my paradigm before round

Most of my paradigm is just suggestions (anything with an * is not), debate the way that works for you

I'll generally evaluate rounds from a technical perspective, but if both teams want a lay round with a perceptual evaluation, I'm cool with that

Most important: extend your arguments in summary and final focus and weigh both. To get a ballot, you should win your argument AND win the comparison

General:

It's easy to get nervous in a debate round, but try your best and use it as a chance to improve

I'm open to listening to pretty much any argument, but keep in mind it's way easier to win realistic, grounded arguments with real impacts

Best to go at a slow to moderate pace, but if you want to go fast be clear and preferably have an email chain

Make sure you have uniqueness, links, and impacts. Uniqueness is the status quo, link is what happens when you affirm/negate, and impact is the result of the link/why the link matters. Remember that whoever wins the uniqueness is the most likely to win the round if you flesh out your warrants and impacts.

EXTEND. Too many people lose rounds they would have won because they forgot to extend their case in summary and/or final. An extension is a summary of the status quo, what affirming/negating does, and the impact of that. Extend in summary and final focus. (non negotiable)

WEIGH. If both teams have strong arguments by the end of the round, I'll default to weighing and vote based on who is winning the comparison

Second rebuttal should respond to first rebuttal and constructive case. First rebuttal just has to respond to constructive. Summary and Final should have your case, weighing, and their case

Collapsing on one or two arguments in the backhalf is strategic

Crossfire:

I'll listen to crossfire, but I won't vote for a team based on what happens in cross

If you have a good point made in cross, you have to bring it up in a speech for me to vote for it

Crossfire does factor into speaker points. Be polite and don't interrupt your opponents unless you need to, but be assertive and confident

Speaks:

I generally give high speaks (29-30) if you're putting proper effort into having a good speaks

I don't generally take off for stuttering or hesitating because these things generally need practice to improve on

If you're loud and confident (not too loud), you speak at a slow-moderate pace, you're clear, and you're polite in crossfire, you'll likely get pretty good speaks

Progressive arguments:

If you're a novice and you've never heard of this, don't worry about it

If you're a novice and you run progressive arguments, I won't even listen and I'll probably vote against you

I have very limited experience with theory, kritiks, tricks, etc. so best not to run them

Paradigms I agree with: Aaryan Tomar, Jaival Patel

• I'm a volunteer and I've read over some information about this topic and watched a demo video, but I'm new to judging.
• Please keep your delivery slow and clear. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

No spreading please. I WILL take off points if you do so.

I prefer Traditional LD over Progressive.

Also, as a last note. Don't be rude. Any behavior that is not appropriate will result in getting to lowest amount of speaker points.

Include me in your email chain at: ngurumukhi@hotmail.com

DEBATE:

PF: I hope I never judge PF, but at least it's not LD.

LD: I hope I never judge LD again, but at least it's not policy.

Policy: I don't know what this is? um yea idk

World Schools: Is this like policy but with a lot of people?

SPEECH:

Interp: vibes

Extemp: content has to make sense and be logical. If your joke does not make me laugh, you will automatically be ranked last.

jk but please don't try to be funny if you're not funny

Oratory: vibes

Info: vibes but the boards can't overwhelm me thx :3

I'm a Tabula Rasa judge so I rely on the debaters and the flow to set both the validity of arguments and the role of the ballot. That means that I'll accept any argument until the other side contests it with argumentation or theory and puts it into play. I really enjoying seeing the rebuttals is weighing of impacts and holistic evaluation that inform my ballot. Evidence is important, but every argument should also have analysis. It is important that you have a very clear link chain throughout the debate. It is also important that you clearly weigh and impact your arguments (the earlier in the debate the better). BE COMPARATIVE. Do not make me have to choose which impact I think might be more important than another. Don't just tell me what your impacts are. Weigh and tell me why they matter, and comparatively weigh against your opponents. I will evaluate whatever arguments you present in round.

Make it easy for me to vote, weigh the round at the end.

Style/Delivery Preference:

Spreading is fine

You must be clear and articulate.

Slow down/emphasize on your taglines.

Signpost!!

Be respectful and nice to your partner and opponents.

Have Fun :)

[[ ]] new: policy teams have, for some reason, decided the only thing they want to read in the 1ar vs negative kritiks is framework. generally, this strategy tends to lose in front of me. if framework is true, the alternative still exists and you probably need to do other things to answer a potential materialism push. usually the negative gets the link and the aff gets to weigh the case.

[[ ]] I was told my old paradigm was too long, so I've shortened it considerably. I still agree with everything that was there broadly, and you can read the archived versionhere.

[[ ]] NEW: I HAVE UPDATED MY EMAIL FOR ORGANIZATION PURPOSES. SEND DOCS HERE: djdebatedocs@gmail.com

.

[[ ]] About Me

• affiliations: dulles (current), plano west (grad 2021), mcneil (2023-2024)
• Debated in HS and won some stuff, had a brief stint in NDT/CEDA policy and won no stuff, haven't competed since early 2022. shouldn't matter to anyone anymore especially what is now like 4-5 years down the line.
• Disinterested in judging vacuous non-arguments and listening to kids be jerks to each other. Be nice. Violence in front of me is an L0 and a talk with your coach. The target of this violence decides what happens with the debate. Yes, this includes misgendering. its probably best to avoid gendering whoever ur debating as a good rule of thumb. i expect mutual kindness, respect, and professionalism.
• MUCH WORSE FOR E-DEBATE. It's too draining and I zone out a lot. Pref me online at your own risk. i wont punish you for debating online or anything like that, but i dont personally trust my own ability to judge as effectively in that environment so its important that ur aware of that.
• I want to be on the email chain, and I want you to send docs in Word doc format: djdebatedocs@gmail.com.i strongly prefer an email chain to speechdrop.
• Yes speed, if you have to ask though you're likely unclear and I urge you to correct it.
• Yes, clash. No to arguments that are specifically designed to avoid engagement
• tech and truth both matter. truth informs how technically difficult an argument is to win. more willing to believe that grass is green than 2+2=5 but both are winnable, just a matter of threshold.

.

[[ ]] Specfic Arguments

• tl;dr is that I think every decision is interventionist to some degree, but I try to be as predictable and open about my preferences as possible.
• yes policy; counterplans, disads, etc. are fine. Zero risk is probably a thing. I think it's more interventionist to vote on unwarranted arguments unjustified by the evidence than to read evidence after the debate without being prompted. My BS detector is good and if you're lying about evidence, I'll probably know. i will not judge kick unless you justify it, and i can probably be persuaded it's bad to do so. neg leaning on most counterplan theory and condo, but its not an unwinnable battle for the aff. condo is definitely an uphill fight though.
• yes kritiks, but I lean more toward policy these days. this is not because of anything paradigmatic but rather because i've found most kritikal debates to be overwhelmingly generic lately. these next two sentences might seem paradoxical, but I assure you they are not. I am deeply interested in poststructuralist positions and think I will be the best for you if this is your thing. you should defend something material and do something. preference for speeches that contain the alternative and do something material instead of heavy framework dumps with "reject the aff." To clarify, framework and a link is a fine 2nr but the important part is a link. If I don't know what the aff is doing that is actively bad I cannot vote it down even under your framework interp. the negative will always get the link, the aff gets the plan, not much will change that.
• yes planless/creatively topical/critical affs, but again I lean more toward policy these days. justify why reading your aff in a space where it must be negated and debated against is good, not just why it's good in a vacuum. talking about the resolution is a must - you should not be recycling backfiles from a different topic and saying nothing about the resolution. Talk about the entire resolution and don't abstract from words or modifiers. if I don't know what the aff does, I'm not voting for it. I'm a big sucker for presumption.
• yes T-FWK. fine for both fairness and clash, although if you're going for fairness as an internal link, you're probably better set going for clash as an impact itself. Talk about the aff, don't just debate past it. letting the aff win that they resolve xyz impact turn with conceded warrants from case usually means you will lose.
• yes non-framework topicality arguments. i am the antonin scalia of topicality and am a diehard textualist. precision is very important to me
• i dont think ive ever voted for "disclosure bad" or similar arguments. unless its new, if the aff isnt disclosed, you lose. sorry. i am reasonable and i think taking proactive or good faith steps to disclose is sufficient. any interp more specific than "must disclose" is unlikely to be a winner. if you have the aff reasonably close to 30 minutes before, it satisifies the must disclose requirement.

[[ ]] LD Specific:

• Phil: sometimes. I understand these arguments theoretically considering it's what I'm studying and I know what people like Kant, Levinas, Spinoza, and Hegel say. I don't understand the debate application of these folks. Be clear and overexplain. wont vote on skep if normatively justified.
• Tricks: strike me.

.

[[ ]] PF: tl;dr im technical but rather disinterested in hearing progressive arguments. strong preference to not hear diet policy debates b/c speech times make it so that the more things you have to explain the less likely you will win.

.

If you have questions email me, although the archived version of my paradigm at the top will likely answer them. Good luck!

Hi, I'm Aashik Khakoo, I'm a traditional judge but have had 30+ years public speaking experience.

I'd prefer to be on the email chain, but please do not spread.

Please speak like you are giving a Ted Talk

Also for 1AC in LD, I prefer you read only part of the cards highlighting bullet points of your cards, which will leave you time to create an analytical section to help persuade me rather than just reading your cards, which is what’s happened in the past. I’m happy to clarify this if needed before, starting the debate.

I prefer analytical debates over card dumping, and please line by line your opponents case.

Please send documents ahead of time - my email address is akhakoo2@gmail.com

Keep Cross efficient, and give short answers to all as many questions as possible.

I see debate as a performance, and prefer truth > tech

Please create clash in the round don't just extend your arguments

I will not tolerate speaking over each other, or any racist, sexist, homophobic etc, arguments

Aashik

I'm a volunteer judge who spent a few years doing L-D debate and Team Debate (C-X Debate) about 30 years ago in high school. As a judge, I approach each debate with a "clean slate" and will focus on the content of what each debater presents and who I feel did the best job. I wish you all well and have fun!

I am a parent judge and served as LD judge since 2023. My background is a seasoned scientist in Biotechnology, I value evidence based arguments. Please prepare accordingly.

My email address is: xiuquanluo@gmail.com

I am a parent judge. My focus will be on two aspects: (1) Logical arguments (2) Presentation style.

If you are going to claim that your position will save Earth/Humanity, you better have supporting statements equal in magnitude.

Don't speed read your material. Present it.

Convince your audience that your position is correct.

Look at your audience, not at your laptop.

Hi, I'm Ayne. I'm a senior who debates for Greenhill.

Email chain: parka24@greenhill.org or speech drop.

TELL ME WHAT TO VOTE FOR, give me one argument to vote for and tell me WHY, please be clear!

Slow down for analytics especially if you don't send them!!!

I'm not the most comfortable evaluating theory or Ks but I will if I have to - read at your own discretion. Don't be mean.

Bye :) see u in round

--Speech--

What are your stylistic preferences for extemp? I enjoy the traditional format of extemp speeches, but prefer them to be as conversational as possible. if you're going to have a standard opener that you use religiously, be sure it makes sense. also be sure it isn't the exact same as every other person on your team. Use what YOU know and lean into that so that conversation flows naturally.

How much evidence do you prefer? quality over quantity for me. cite your sources with the date included, and use varied sources. at least 3 different ones! and make sure if you're bluffing that i can't tell you're bluffing.

Any preference for virtual delivery? acknowledge the camera if we're competing virtually! make sure you are in a space where you can be seen and heard.

What are your stylistic preferences for Oratory/Info? CONVERSATIONAL. Do not make it seem like this is the umteenth time you've competed with this piece. The beauty of oratory/info is that this is, or should be, your passion piece! YOU wrote every word. and if you're going to speak on something for 10 minutes over and over again, you should love it. And no matter how many times you've run it, it should feel like the first time every time. Your topic is near and dear to you and it's your job to make it near and dear to us. Universality is key. Though I may not be a part of the community or group or conversation, I need to understand why i MUST become a part of it or aware of it. Your passion and excitement for your speech should be palpable. Make it feel like the first time every time because for most people in the room it is the very first time we've gotten to hear this speech. and you have ten minutes to use this room as your platform and speak on what's important to you. make sure we leave this room talking about YOU! Your goal should be for us to be at our family dinner table telling everyone who will listen about this moment we took away from your speech. your gestures need to make sense and be natural. do not simply fall into gestures that you see being done just for the sake of doing them. if you wouldn't normally use particular hand gestures or vocal variations DONT DO IT for the sake of a round.

How much evidence do you prefer? I need enough statistics to not feel like you're just giving me your own personal think tank. back up what you're saying with multiple different credible sources. offer viewpoints that challenge yours, and then back them up with your facts.

Any unique thoughts on teasers? Your teaser sets the tone for the entire piece. Think about how you want to introduce us to the next ten minutes that we are going to watch!

Any unique thoughts on introductions for Interpretation events? Make them personal to YOU! Tell me why this piece matters to you while also telling me about the piece. What qualifies you to speak on this? Why should we listen and care? If you don't know who/what you're speaking on don't waste your time. oftentimes we are lifting up and bringing awareness to a community or an issue that is very delicate. use your intro to tell us why you're doing this and why it matters. Even in HI!!! i LOOOOVE a good tie in to real life. leave us talking about what we learned regardless of whether we are laughing, crying, or everything in between. take me on a JOURNEY.

Any preferences with respect to blocking, movement, etc: Make every movement a moment. I should be able to snap a photo of you and tell what you're doing and where you are. make movements and pantomimes intentional and thoughtful. break the mold! take me somewhere I've never been.

What are your thoughts on character work? you absolutely must BECOME your character. you need to study people who have experienced what your character has experienced. embody them wholly. whether it's in a humorous or serious way. do not halfway commit to something and expect us to buy in.

How do you feel about author's intent and appropriateness of a piece? For example: an HI of Miracle Worker (author's intent) or a student performing mature material or using curse words (appropriateness)? Author’s intent- doesn’t bother me too much. Appropriateness is BIG for me. You’re in HIGH SCHOOL- crude sexual humor and excessive cusswords just aren’t necessary. It’s also cheap comedy IMO. If you’re that “mature” aim higher for your content. A few innuendos are okay, but don't get crazy. There are far more ways to get laughs then to take it literally below the belt.

About me: I'm passionate about speech and debate. It was my primary extracurricular in high school where I competed in debate (LD), extemp (USX/FX), and oratory on the TFA/UIL (Texas) circuit. I also qualified and competed at NSDA Nationals (back then it was still NFL Nationals) and reached USX Finals twice. So, I'm very familiar with these events and am excited to return to judge. Since graduating, I've gone on to become a marketing executive and have always valued the skills and abilities learned through my years in speech to develop and deliver powerful presentations.

LD: I would consider myself a traditional judge who believes strongly that Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a fundamentally different style of debate from CX/PF/WSD. It is supposed to be a values debate, so I look for each side to present and defend what value is paramount and why their side upholds that value.

I will flow the debate and judge on the arguments presented. A few important things to keep in mind:

1. If I can't flow it - I can't judge on it.
2. This is a persuasive event. Reading evidence cards as fast as you can has never persuaded anyone that someone's position is best. Talking clearly and emotionally at speed is not a problem....throwing verbal spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks (or doesn't get dropped) will not be well received. Speed often KILLS great debates.
3. Signpost - Remember it's a speaking competition and I should be able to follow which are your key arguments and to what contentions your arguments/rebuttals apply. (the more time I have to figure out where an argument should be flowed is less time I spend listening to you)
4. Quality over Quantity. You don't have to win every contention.....you need to win the most important ones. Focus on those. I don't judge on the number of arguments contested.
5. Crystallize. Telling me what to vote on helps focus the debate.
6. I will not connect the dots for you. I will decide first on voters presented in the round. If that's a draw - I will then look at what was actually debated and how those arguments supported the value/criterion.

Speaker Points: Personally, I think it's silly that instead of using the full 30 point range, modern convention now uses a 40 point range by scoring as (mostly) 25-30 in 0.1 increments. I will keep to the ranges specified for the tournament, but will fully use it to distinguish between truly persuasive speakers from the others.

Side note: I will score lower than the bottom of the typical range for contestants that are verbally abusive or use inappropriate language. Basically - don't be jerks to each other.

For IE: First and foremost, I view all these events as persuasive contests. Your speech should clearly present a POV, defended with facts/stats/sources, and presented with passion to convince me that your POV is accurate. For extemp - please make sure to state and answer the question.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. jmsimsrox@gmail.com

UT '21 update (since I'm judging policy): I judge probably around a dozen policy rounds on the DFW local circuit a year (since about 2011), so I'm not a policy debate expert but I shouldn't be confused by your round. That means that I will probably understand the arguments you're making in a vacuum, but that you should probably err on the side of over-explaining how you think those arguments should interact with each other; don't just expect me to be operating off the exact same policy norms that you/the national circuit do. I am fairly willing to evaluate arguments however you tell me to. I have read a decent bit of identity, setcol, and cap lit. I am less good on pomo lit but I am not unwilling to vote on anything I can understand. Totally down for just a plan v counterplan/disad debate too.

Tl;dr I'm fine with really any argument you want to read as long as it links to and is weighed in relation to some evaluative mechanism. I am pretty convinced that T/theory should always be an issue of reasonability (I obviously think that some debates are better when there is a clear counter-interp that offense is linked back to); if you trust me to compare and weigh offense on substantive issues in the debate, I can't figure out why you wouldn't also trust me to make the same judgments on T/theory debates (unless you're just making frivolous/bad T/theory args). I enjoy any debate that you think you can execute well (yeah this applies to your K/counter-plan/non-T aff; I'll listen to it). I base speaker points on whether or not I think that you are making strategic choices that might lead to me voting for you (extending unnecessary args instead of prioritizing things that contribute to your ballot story, dropping critical arguments that either are necessary for your position or that majorly help your opponent, failing to weigh arguments in relation to each other/the standard would be some general examples of things that would cause you to lose speaker points if I am judging). Beyond those issues, I think that debate should function as a safe space for anyone involved; any effort to undermine the safety (or perceived safety) of others in the activity will upset me greatly and result in anything from a pretty severe loss of speaker points to losing the round depending on the severity of the harm done. So, be nice (or at least respectful) and do you!

I did not do debate in high school or college.

I have coached speech and debate for 20 years. I focus on speech events, PF, and WSD. I rarely judge LD (some years I have gone the entire year without judging LD), so if I am your judge in LD, please go slowly. I will attempt to evaluate every argument you provide in the round, but your ability to clearly explain the argument dictates whether or not it will actually impact my decision/be the argument that I vote off of in the round. When it comes to theory or other progressive arguments (basically arguments that may not directly link to the resolution) please do not assume that I understand completely how these arguments function in the round. You will need to explain to me why and how you are winning and why these arguments are important. When it comes to explanation, do not take anything for granted. Additionally, if you are speaking too quickly, I will simply put my pen down and say "clear."

In terms of PF, although I am not a fan of labels for judges ("tech," "lay," "flay") I would probably best be described as traditional. I really like it when debaters discuss the resolution and issues related to the resolution, rather than getting "lost in the sauce." What I mean by "lost in the sauce" is that sometimes debaters take on very complex ideas/arguments in PF and the time limits for that event make it very difficult for debaters to fully explain these complex ideas.

Argument selection is a skill. Based on the time restrictions in PF debate, you should focus on the most important arguments in the summary and final focus speeches. I believe that PF rounds function like a funnel. You should only be discussing a few arguments at the end of the round. If you are discussing a lot of arguments, you are probably speaking really quickly, and you are also probably sacrificing thoroughness of explanation. Go slowly and explain completely, please.

In cross, please be nice. Don't talk over one another. I will dock your speaks if you are rude or condescending. Also, every competitor needs to participate in grand cross. I will dock your speaks if one of the speakers does not participate.

For Worlds, I prefer a very organized approach and I believe that teams should be working together and that the speeches should compliment one another. When each student gives a completely unique speech that doesn’t acknowledge previous arguments, I often get confused as to what is most important in the round. I believe that argument selection is very important and that teams should be strategizing to determine which arguments are most important. Please keep your POIs clear and concise.

If you have any questions, please let me know after I provide my RFD. I am here to help you learn.

Pronouns: he/him

armadaverae@gmail.com

Hi, my name is Armada (she/they). I debated a few years ago at Centennial in LD. Slow down on analytics(or just send them), I won't flow what I don't catch but I'll say clear three times before I stop flowing. I haven't judged for a few month so I would not suggest intense spreading.

Please make sure Ks are clear- especially links, alts, and ROB. I'm not the best judge for performance, tricks, or phil; I am not familiar with them. DAs and Ts are fine. CPs and theory need good links. Framework debates are good. I'll vote on 2 condo but more than that, and probably I'll err aff. I'll vote on theory but there needs to be clear abuse and spec DTD/DTA.

Tell me what argument you won, how, and why it matters. Do the weighing and impact calculus for me. I like good links and evidence- especially when collapsing. I won't evaluate arguments without extensions.

Have your cases ready!!

If there is any discrimination, racism, sexism, or homophobia in round, I will tank speaks and hand the L. Be nice to each other and do not create a hostile environment, we want a fun debate :)

I've done Congress for 4 years, but have no experience in other debate events. I will be mainly focusing on speaking style and efficiency, so make sure you present your ideas well.

Keep in mind that I have no prior knowledge about the topic and LD jargon.

Bring me some candy from concessions for +1.5 speaks!

I will like you better in round if:

a) text your best pick up line to this number: (214) 263-6662 (and show me when you come into round)

b) you add taylor swift quotes/jokes to all your speeches

I am a new parent judge who is very lay

Make arguments clear, concise, and compelling.
I would prefer a slow conversational pace to prioritize clarity.
Highly discourage any tricks, extensive phil, extensive k's, or any unreasonable arguments.

I will be judging your logic, speaking skills, knowledge, and responses.

Giving clear voters and being organized will be very helpful.

My email is crossing66@gmail.com feel free to make an email chain.

I am a parent judge who has judged some LD and PF debates 10 years ago.

I would like to see a clean and respectable debate based on evidence at a conversational pace. Make sure you cite your sources for evidence and keep your eye contact with judge. Some other criteria that I will be using to judge the debate round are:

• Arguing on the topic of debate while providing relevant information na good evidence
• Make arguments easy to follow and understand while free of fallacies or attacks against another
• use speaking time efficiently and clear
• Be a good speaker, listener and critical thinker

Wish you the best.

I have many years of experience judging all categories of speeches and debates. As a community judge, I look for speaking styles which respects all audiences with a balanced, reasonable and thoughtful delivery.

Hi! I've had past experience with all speech events besides interpretation and informative, and I've done/do both Extemps, Public Forum, and Congress.

Extemp:

Delivery:
For online, just try and watch the camera. It's tempting to look at yourself to see how it is, but that makes your eyes look unfocused on the camera, and that'll raise suspicions.

I'm old, so I like Extemp Walk, but it isn't required.

Stutters aren't too big unless they're frequent, but swaying/pacing/fidgeting leaves a big mark about you in my head.

For a general style, don't act like you're completely formal; be slightly conversational, engage me and act like you know your topic.

Content:

ANSWER THE QUESTION PROPERLY! Don't duck or dodge around it.

Needs proper (sub)structure, analysis and relations to your umbrella are a must. Nothing too big in content preference.

I need sources, best 2 per point, with at least year if you can. Analyze statistics, don't just point them out.

If there's any hint of personal opinion when it isn't necessary (sexism, racism, etc) you aren't winning the round regardless of the rest of your speech.

Try not to use a notecard. I don't like notecards.

PF:

Spreading is ok until it reaches the point where you aren't able to articulate 35% of your case/speech. Then the judges can't hear anything and it gets hard to judge.

Weigh clearly and specifically, I as a judge need to know exactly why I should vote you. Use juxtaposition directly between your case and that of your opponents.

Utilize prep time; hearing an unprepped rebuttal from a confident speaker isn't going to cut it for me, you can definitely do better if you use at least 10 seconds or so to collect your thoughts beforehand.

No thoughts on theory, Ks, etc.

You can ask questions but I'm not going to change my decision.

I'll do my best to give a verbal disclosure at the end of each round.

Public Speaking:

Confidence is key, any topic can win a round as long as it's presented persuasively and with sufficient research.

Mostly looking for the same delivery I look for in extemp, except stutters will be taken into account more seriously because of the nature of the event.

Congress:

Please don't spread.

Clash is key; I don't wanna watch a boring round.

POs should be efficient, but don't sacrifice equity for speed.

If you're restating a previously brought up argument, add something to it. Don't just say it again for the sake of it.

LD:

I have experience but not as much as other events.

I'll mostly follow the same rules I have for PF, as the only noticeable difference is the number of debaters in the room.

For email chains or questions, reach me at abezhang9@gmail.com

Good luck and have fun!