Pronouns: she/her ♀️

Email: nalan0815@gmail.com,

Please also include: damiendebate47@gmail.com

I debated policy debate for 3 years in high school 2008-2011 and have judged for 10+ years now.

I REALLY like to see impact calculus - "Even if..." statements are excellent! Remember: magitude⚠️, timeframe⏳️, probability ⚖️. I only ever give high speaker points to those that remember to do this. This should also help you remember to extend your impacts, and compare them with your opponent's as reasons for a judge to prefer your side.

• However, I don't like when both sides keep extending arguments/cards that say opposite things without also giving reasons to prefer one over the other. Tell me how the arguments interact, how they're talking about something different, etc.
• Be sure to extend arguments (especially your T voters) even if they're uncontested - because that gives me material for the reason for decision. If it's going to be in your last speech, it better be in the speech before it (tech > truth here). Otherwise, I give weight to the debater that points it out and runs theory to block it from coming up again or applying.

------------------------- Miscellaneous ----------------------------

Prep and CX: I do not count emailing /flashdriving as prep time unless it takes ~2+ minutes. Tag-team cross-ex is ok as long as both teams agree to it and you're not talking over your partner. Please keep track of your speech and prep time.

Full disclosure: Beyond the basic K's like Cap, Security, Biopow, Fem, etc., I'm not familiar with unique K's, and especially where FrameWork tends to be a mess, you might need a little more explanation on K solvency for me or I might get lost.

I often read along to the 1AC and 1NC to catch card-clipping, even checking the marked copies.

I was a successful high school and college debater, and I believe in clear, accessible, well-paced, and well-organized argumentation. I flow debates. I value debaters who listen carefully to the opposition’s arguments. I am not impressed by any kind of esoteric debate jargon. I hate spreading and other approaches to debate that deprioritize basic public speaking skills. I am a professor of political theory, so I get cranky when people misrepresent philosophers or cherry-pick quotations from them. I believe that humor, decency, vulnerability, and creativity—not just reason and evidence giving—make better debates and debaters.

Hello! My name is Noah, I'm a college student at Cal Poly Pomona and a recent speech and debate alumni. I was primarily a congress kid, so my judging specialty lies in there and speeches, but I also did some parli, and have a good amount of knowledge about all the other debate types as well. Some of my Judging Particulars are as follows:

In general

• Be polite, courteous, and respectful to your opponents, or other people you are in the round with. I will not hesitate drop tank your speakers and/or ranking if it is a consistent problem. At the end of the day, debate is supposed to be a challenging and fun, albeit competitive activity, and snobs that treat their opponents as beneath them take away from that a lot, and I don't really appreciate that.
• When possible, be prompt and timely when going to your rounds. This won't actually affect my rankings and is more a pet peeve. Obviously sometimes being late happens, but try to avoid wasting your opponents time and my time by having us sit without you for 5-10 minutes after the round was supposed to start.
• In all events, I value organization and clarity very highly. The easier it is for me to see how your speech/case develops and progresses, the more detailed notes and flow I will have on it, which makes the ballot or ranking easier for me to give in your favor.

Congress

In congress, the most important factor for me is how well you advance the round. Early on, that usually is bringing in new arguments and laying the foundation for your side, but as the round progresses it should instead be rebutting the other side, crystalizing the round, or adding analysis to the round in some other way.

Questioning

• 1. In direct questioning, the time belongs to the questioner. I can understand being firm in an answer, but be polite and courteous when asking and answering. Cutting each other off and yelling incessantly accomplishes nothing and wastes questioning time. If you are repeatedly rude in questioning, especially if the PO has warned you about it, I will probably drop your rank for it.
• 2. In indirect questioning, keep your questions short so as many questions can be asked as possible. I don't particularly like answers such as "I don't understand the question", or "That isn't relevant", as without follow-ups they are really just transparent question dodgers, and I will treat them as you being unable to answer the question

Speaking

(I'll finish this later I swear)

Debate

Speech

I am a debate coach whose decisions are incredibly flow based. I am a great judge for technical, mechanical line-by-line debate at any speed where I can crisply hear every syllable of every single word. My background is in policy debate, but I have primarily coached/judged LD for the past 5+ years.

Clarity and judge instructions are axiomatic. I find myself most often intervening (which I dislike) when debaters are unclear and when I lack directions. I unabashedly cannot flow analytical arguments at unclear card text speed - please slow down on important parts of the debate you want me to get down verbatim on my flow. Almost every paradigm regardless of ideology says "more judge instructions please" because debaters hardly ever do enough! The best rebuttals always start and end with directions. I implore you to treat the round like a fine dining prix fixe experience where you let me savor several courses thoroughly that you have exquisitely chosen and explained, rather than reading me the entire Cheesecake Factory menu at top speed while telling me everything is good.

Debate is for the debaters, not for the judges or coaches. Debate is what the debaters want it to be. I believe in a student/debater centered model of debate. The arguments you choose to read should not be based on ideologically pleasing me. You should run whatever arguments you are passionate about, enjoy, think are strategic, are studying, and/or are just trying to get better at deploying and want some feedback. I appreciate debaters who take time to craft strategies they want to read and do not think my ideological beliefs should play a factor in the debate.

I do not have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you read. I try not to intervene and insert my personal biases or beliefs for arguments presented into the debate. I am not bias towards any particular style, content, or form. That being said, while I like to consider myself an incredibly flexible coach and judge, I am not an expert in all styles, content, and forms. You should assume I am a debate coach that is referentially familiar with what you are saying, but not a subject area expert that has flow shorthand abbreviations for the SAT words you expect me to get down perfectly. Even if I am particularly knowledgeable about the substance matter of the debate, I purposefully try to not fill in the gaps. Robust explanation is likely necessary.

I think the role of the judge should be to evaluate the arguments presented and reach the best decision requiring the least intervention. I think it would be highly improper and interventionist for me as a judge to impose certain argumentative burdens on the aff or neg. I do not ideologically care if you defend the resolution or not and will leave that up to the debaters. I do not believe that it is the judge's role to come in with beliefs that make them unwilling to believe or vote on issues like conditionality, zero risk, terminal defense, presumption, or affs that do not defend a topical plan - you get the point. I am just as willing to vote on conditionality bad as I am conditionality good - and am just as willing to vote on zero risk as I am "there's a risk so try or die". You should not assume I will "ignore" arguments like "instrinsicness", "fiat solves the link", "you misspelled a word in the plan/counterplan text" or RVIs, if these arguments are properly explained. Are these likely winning arguments if evenly debated by both sides? Probably not. But I am not going to ignore arguments presented with warrants just because I do not "believe" or "don't vote" for that argument because it is "not a thing". I do not have any preconceived ideas about debate arguments or theory when in the role of the judge and tend to vote based on only my flow. I am willing to vote on any claim that has warrants and implications with instructions. Just because your opponent is "trolling" or reading "tricks" does not mean you get a free pass to not answer these arguments and still win the debate. I think carving out exceptions for arguments like wipeout, spark, or any of the arguments like the ones I have mentioned in this paragraph would encourage terrible advocacy skills.

I do not auto judge kick a counterplan/alternative without being explicitly told to do so in the last neg speech act as doing so would be judge intervention.

During the debate: I will flow unless instructed otherwise. I flow the speech not the speech doc. Please do not speak or organize your speech in a way that assumes I am following along in the document. I usually look at cards during cross and prep if they are being discussed.

Reason for decision process: I actively think about the debate during the actual debate itself. I often have the debate mostly figured out when the timer beeps for the last speech. I do not reconstruct the debates afterwards. I use a double check method where if I am going to vote neg, I go through the entirety of the flow of the 2AR after I have made my decision and try to make sure I am not missing anything and have an answer to every "what about this" question that is on my flow from the last speech. I generally type a written reason for decision on the ballot (typically several short paragraphs) before I submit my ballot where I explain how I decided the core issues of the particular debate. Speaker point floor typically 29.0.

I was a reasonably competitive policy debater for all four years of high school and for one tournament in college. I also practiced law for nine years. Spreading is fine; I can definitely still recognize quality over nonsense mumbling. I will not tolerate disrespectful/unethical behavior, shady tactics and unnecessary aggression. The flow is determinative in that I will not make arguments for you if you didn't articulate it in the round. Proper skill in navigating the flow is something I very much appreciate and respect.

Finally, be passionate even if you don’t personally believe in what you’re arguing for; learn to be an advocate. Have fun!!

I am a parent judge, and am new to judging. Please speak at a moderate pace. I will judge the round on impacts and strengths of the overall arguments. I like references (Examples: Facts, statistics, etc.). Please be kind and respectful.

First of all, let me start by saying I HATE SPREADING. And I mention it frequently, and we STILL. SEE. SPREADING. You are not auditioning for an auctioneering job, you are trying to present a convincing argument. Three strong points well presented will be more effective with me than ten thrown out in an indecipherable flurry of syllables strung together. CUT IT OUT.

Good information well documented goes without saying. But there, I just said it anyway.

A presentation that has an arc, where the delivery is smooth throughout but that varies in tone, volume, rate, intensity, etc. will always tend to sway me in your favor. Good signposting is smiled upon.

Finally, look and sound like you're having a good time, or at least that you have something that you're glad you get a chance to present. Have confidence in yourself, and know that even if you stumble, you're going to get through this. And of course, when you find yourself totally lost and the information or words that you had right there two minutes ago have somehow disappeared, stop, smile, regroup and carry on. You will get through this. Probably doing better than you think.

Be mindful of your judging pool. Especially when you have less experienced parent judges, consider taking your time for an extra beat here and there, be sure to signpost well, enunciate and speak up. Some of us are old and not as quick as we used to be. Good luck, have fun, and, as we say in my hometown, Don't Forget To Be Awesome.

Email:

traviswaynecochran@gmail.com

Affiliations - Present:

The Harker School

2023-2024 Updates:

1. Everyone should slow down. Debate would be better. Does this mean you might have to read less in the 1NC? YES! Does this mean that 2As might have to make less/better answers? YES! Does this mean you need to slow down on prewritten extensions and analytics? YES! I want to fully grasp EVERYTHING in the debate and not just get the gist of things. If you do not want to adapt to this, then you have prefs and strikes. I suggest you use them accordingly ...
2. Debaters that flow and give speeches from their flows, as opposed to their prewritten speech docs, are the gold standard.
3. Great debaters use the full spectrum of human emotion to persuade judges. Anger, sadness, humor, fear, hope, love, and all the other things we feel, connect us to the arguments we're making. If your debates only have one emotion (or none), then it will probably be pretty boring.

Top Level Stuffs:

1. Speech docs: I want to be included on any email chains; however, I will be flowing based on what I hear from year speech and not following along with the speech doc. I will use my flow to determine the decision, which can be different from speech docs, especially if you aren't clear and give me enough pen time. Also, I never was the best flow as a debater and I still am not as a judge!

2. All of you are smarter than me. I'll work hard to be a good judge, but I won't promise I will get everything that is happening in the round. Your job will be to explain very complex concepts to a very simple mind.

3. I'm an only-parent of two young children. Always a chance that something happens where I have to take a few minutes of judge prep. I'll work hard to minimize these instances, but cannot promise they will not happen.

4. The "ideal" number of off-case positions in a round for me when I am in the back of the room is anywhere from 0-5. You can absolutely read more, but I get angrier as the number of counterplans in the 1NC rises. I think 1-2 counterplans in a 1NC is reasonable. I prefer 1NCs without throwaway positions but still have a lot of block/2NR optionality. Basically, I am a fan of clash and vertical spread.

If you still think it's good to have me in the back of the room after you know this, then continue reading and see if you still feel that way when you're done.

Argument Feelings:

Topicality: It is up to the debaters to determine how I evaluate topicality. I tend to default to reasonability. Slow down a tick on T or you will make me sad. I cannot keep up with you reading your 2NC/1NR blocks at full speed.

Counterplans: The more specific the better, but I’m game for whatever. Consult CPs are fine. Delay is fine. Conditioning is cool tooI. PICs are the bees knees. However, I am open to theory arguments that any of these should not be allowed. I do not like counterplans with a lot of planks that the negative can jettison at will. Such counterplans will leave me sympathetic to affirmative theory arguments.

Counterplan Theory: Sketchy counterplans should lose to theory. However, theory violations should be well developed and it is up to the affirmative to prove why I should reject the team and not the argument. It's no secret that I am not the quickest flow, so slow down for me on theory debates. I'm more favorable to limited forms of conditionality and/or no conditionality compared national trends.

Theory in General: I almost always think that education > fairness, but ... I think negatives are getting away with too much. People can run multiple contradictory counterplans/advocacies all they want in front of me and I will not automatically vote them down for it. However; I am sympathetic to well articulated theory arguments as to why it is a bad educational practice, as well as sympathetic to affirmatives that use negative shenanigans to justify affirmative shenanigans. Play dirty pool at your own risk in front of me…aff or neg. I do not like cheap shot theory. I try to not vote for cheap shot theory arguments, even if they are dropped. However, I will use cheap shot theory arguments as a way out of difficult rounds in which both teams were making my job painful. I try not to let cheap shots determine the outcome of rounds that are well debated on both sides. I reward good smart debate. No New AFFs is not a good arg in front of me. Pref Sheet Disclosure is not a good arg in front of me.

**** If you're reading this as an LD'er: I am a very bad judge for Tricks debate. Very bad ...

Disads: The more specific the better. I prefer 1 or 2 good uniqueness cards to 10 bad uniqueness cards. I prefer 1 or 2 good warrants to 10 bad uniqueness cards. Disads are great and are a fundamental part of policy and/or critical strategies. Yayy DAs!

Criticisms: The more specific the better. You probably know more about your specific criticism than I do. However, debate is not about who knows the most about a topic; it is about how much you can teach me within the time limits of the round. If I cannot explain your position back to you at the end of the debate, then I cannot vote for it. I believe that AFFs get perms, even critical AFFs. I believe that Ks can win based on winning 100% defense, so, yes ... you can kick the ALT and go for presumption in front of me. On framework, I default to a "middle of the road" approach where NEGs get ALTs & links to whatever, but AFF gets to weigh their 1AC as defenses of their ontology/epistemology/axiology. Only get "links to plan" or "ALT must be competitive policy option" is an uphill battle. Same goes for "you link, you lose" or "they can't weigh their AFF!" For me, those questions are best resolved on link level, alt level, and theory of power level.

Framework: Sure. You can go that route, but please slow down. I prefer substance to theory, meaning that I almost always believe education > fairness. I don't find the procedural fairness stuff that persuasive. Institutions good and training is a much better route with me in the back. TVAs are persuasive to me. So, will I vote on framework? If it is based on why you have a better educational model, then absolutely! If it is based on procedural fairness, then I might still vote on it, but it's an uphill battle. Most of the time I vote on procedural fairness it is a result of some AFF concessions, which is why it's important for me to have a good flow if this is your strategy. I almost always think the better approach is just to take them up on the case page or offer a counterplan.

Performance/Nontraditional/Critical AFFs: I’m cool with it. I don't find your argument persuasive that these AFFs shouldn't get perms. If I can't explain your AFF back to you then it will be really hard for me to vote for you. I have no problem voting NEG on presumption if I don't know what you do or if the NEG has a compelling argument that you do nothing. Honestly, I think that NEGs versus various critical approaches are in a better position with me in the back to go for case turns and solvency arguments. K v K is wonderful, too! This is just my heads up to the policy teams that want my ballot - case, DAs, & CPs are more strategic when I'm in the back than FW.

Case: I honestly think that a well developed case attack (offense and a heck of a lot of good defense) with a DA and/or critique are much more effective than a big off 1NC. Case debate is good and underrated. This is true for policy debaters and k debaters. This is true for policy AFFs and K AFFs.

I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not problematic.

My Idiosyncrasies:

One thing that everyone should know is that I naturally give a lot of nonverbal (sometimes verbal) feedback, even in the middle of rounds. If I think your argument is really smart then you will probably see me smiling and nodding. If I think your argument is not smart or just wrong, my face will look contorted and I will be shaking it in a different direction. If this happens…do not freak out. Use it to your advantage that you know which arguments I like and do not like. Other times, I look unhappy because I am in pain or very hungry (my health ain't the best), so this might throw you off ... sorry! Debate tournaments are hard on all of us. I'm not going to pretend like I'm a machine for longer than two hours while I judge your round.

I will also intervene in cross x if I think that a team is being particularly evasive on a point that needs to be clarified to conduct a good clean debate. I do not believe that the gold standard for judging is to avoid intervention at all costs. I believe intervention is almost always inevitable ... I'm just one of the few people who are willing to say that out loud. Interventions, like the type above, are very rare. I am fully willing and happy to led debaters take the lead and let me render a decision based on the round that happened without me saying a word until the RFD.

Additionally, I usually make fairly quick decisions. I don't scour through evidence and meticulously line up my flows all the way until the decision deadline. Sometimes I will do that if it is warranted to decide the round. However, for me, it doesn't usually require that. I believe that debate is a communication activity and I judge rounds based on what is communicated to me. I use my flows to confirm or deny my suspicions of why I think someone is winning/losing at the conclusion of the debate. Typically, I am making my mind up about who is winning the round and in which ways they might lose it after every speech. This usually creates a checklist of what each team would need to do to win/lose. While listening to 2NRs/2ARs, I go through my checklist & flows to see which ones get marked off. Sometimes this is an easy process. Sometimes it takes me a lot longer to check those boxes ...

I KNOW that you all work VERY HARD for each and every round. I take that very seriously. But, me deciding rounds quickly is not dismissive of you or your work. Instead, my "thoughtful snapshots" of rounds are meant to give some sort of fidelity to the round I witnessed instead of recreating it post hoc. Some people go to concerts and record songs to remember the experience later. I don't. That's not out of disrespect to the artists or their art, rather, it's my own version of honoring their efforts by trying to honor the moment. Some of y'all think that is some BS justification for me to do "less work" after a round, and that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion, as well as where you place me on your strike sheets.

Finally, I am unabashedly human. I am open to the whims of fatigue, hunger, emotions and an overwhelming desire to do what I think is right, no matter how inconsistent and possibly misguided at the time. I try desperately to live my life in a way where I can look in a mirror and be okay with myself (not always successfully). I do the same thing when I am a judge (again, not always successfully). This is just a fair warning to any of you that will be inevitably upset if my decision seems to vary from this judging philosophy. I'm not a robot and sometimes my opinions about my role and this activity changes while judging a round. The truth is that y'all are good at what y'all do, and sometimes you make me change my mind about things. These are the facts of having me in the back of the room, and these facts, no matter how fact-y they might be, are facts that y'all have to deal with :-)

Debate is fun…at least it should be. If it's not, you're doing it wrong!

I participated in policy team debate at both the high school and college levels in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. I also did some coaching at both the high school and college levels. As a result I have excellent understanding of the basics of debate. In the past two years I have judged a number of high school and middle school rounds of Parliamentary, Public Forum and Lincoln Douglas debate.

I have strong background in the basics of debate; concepts like topicality, inherency, the burdens of disadvantages and so on. If you get into recent theory arguments you should assume I’m in the dark and present your arguments accordingly. I was never big on theory debates so the side proposing something like that will carry an extra burden.

In cases where the topic changes frequently I may have little or no experience with the issues involved. Be prepared to explain things in those cases. This would particularly come into play when it is new topic and you are going to get into a topicality discussion.

Technically I should be able to handle any speed of presentation you want to use provided you are clear and understandable. But keep in mind if you are engaging in new concepts you will need to present that information at a rate that is understandable and allows time for me to understand the concepts.

I try to base my decision solely on what is said in the round. That means I won't do the work for you. If the other sides makes a ludicrous argument but you never respond even in passing then you are going to lose that issue.

Debate should be about a clash between arguments. Engage your opponents positions and point out the flaws. Top level debaters will be able to explain the interconnection between arguments and how those connections strengthen your side while weakening your opponents position.

Particularly in final rebuttals I expect to have a weighing of issues and an explanation of why your positions should earn the ballot.

I am happy to answer any questions about my judging paradigm before the start of the round- please ask any questions and if appropriate I will answer them. I will also disclose decisions if the tournament allows me to.

Hi I’m Maddie and if you’re reading this I’m probably your judge! I competed at Campbell hall for 6 years where I did MSPDP and PF. I am currently a sophomore on the USC debate team doing policy.

Please include me on the email chain: madisondamus04@gmail.com

Debate in General:

• you don't need to give me an off time road map just tell me if your starting on aff/pro or neg/con

• Pre-flow before the round or even print your pre-flows, don't waste everyone's time doing it in round

• If your gonna spread make sure to include me on the speech doc/email chain

• Be respectful; I will not tolerate ANY forms of discrimination

• Don't dismiss the validity/existence of structural violence args - if you don't know how to engage with them try linking in instead

• Don't mis-cut or make up evidence

• I am not a fan of debater math and probably won't buy it

PF:

• tech > truth

• Extend links, warrants, and impacts

• SIGNPOST: tell me where to put things on my flow

• Going through the line by line will help you win my ballot

• Defense isn't sticky -- Don't extend things in final focus that weren't in summary

• WEIGH PLEASE. As a tech judge this is extremely important and could make or break your round. Don't make me weigh for you.

• Quality > Quantity of args

• Second rebuttal has to frontline

• Paraphrasing cards is lame but its fine ig

• Structural violence args should have some sort of framework

• Don't extend through ink - please engage with clash

• Don't miscut evidence

• Don't post round me

• I don't really care about any content mentioned in cross unless its a binding question. Just be pretty respectful and make it entertaining.

Theory/K’s:

• Don't read frivolous theory you’ll probably lose

• Fine with paraphrasing + disclosure theory

• Fine for the most part on K’s if ran well (run at your own risk)

Parli:

• Be funny

• Engage with clash

• Address your opponents arguments

• signpost and go through the line by line

LD:

• I have the least amount of experience with this format so tell me what arguments to prioritize and why

• unless yall are debating T I don't need to hear definitions I think they can be a waste of time
• I look to who's winning the framework debate (if framework is read) when casting my ballot
• please signpost

Hi! I am a lay judge.

I dislike spreading and value interacting with your opponent's arguments well.

Hello all, my name is Ashlie.

I make my decision based on the speaker who best: formulated logical arguments, extended their arguments, and responded to their opponent's arguments. The language used in the round should be comprehensible. Make sure to define key terms. I prefer clarity over speed, if I don't understand what you are saying because of how fast you are speaking, that means I am not writing it down.

During cross-examination, I am aware there will be clash and I expect respect amongst each other. My decision on who wins the round is on the speaker whomade the best arguments, not the most aggressive or loudest speaker.

Please time yourselves. I will be taking time and notify you when time is up, but timing yourself is a great skill as you can determine how much time you have left.Be mindful of the time, if your time is up. I will allow you to finish your last sentence but do not continue.

All in all, I am excited to judge your round!

Remember to be clear and state uniqueness, solvency, and impact of the policy/resolution. Take a deep breathe and show me all the hard work you have put in.

Hello debaters! I am your friendly, neighborhood judge here to give you a few tips about me. I am a parent volunteer and I have been judging for about two years. I look for solid logical arguments and the ability to refute poor logic. You've worked hard to be here so please make sure I can understand you. Don't speak so quickly that your words disappear. Don't be too quiet, but please don't shout at me either. One last note, please DO NOT talk over each other. Be respectful of each other.

Amy

My paradigm is as follows:

1. I vote based off of what happens in the round, or more accurately, what happens according to my flow. If you want me to vote on an argument, it has to make it to my flow, and for an argument to do so, stay organized, sign post, and tag. It’s your job to be clear on what your specific response is, not my job to decipher what your tag line is or what you’re responding to.

2. While I am an alumni debater with a Policy, LD, and Parli background, I am very much AGAINST speed talking. You don’t need speed to spread, you just need to be an efficient and effective communicator.

POI: if I put my pen down during your speech, it’s an indication that your either are not communicating effectively (ie. not clear, organized, signposting, or tagging) or you are over time.

3. I suspend my own personal beliefs and simply follow the arguments for the duration of a round. You only need to make strong arguments and impact well to convince me. Don’t assume I agree with you and then cut your argument short (link, warrant, and/or impact) as a result.

4. I love structure in debate (arguments, cases, format, strategy, etc.) and have enjoyed framework debates in the past. As long as you make it clear why your argument matters both to your side and the resolution, I’ll vote on it. If you and your opponents fail to do so, the argument will not affect the RFD or I will have to insert my own opinion into the round to vote on it.

5. A consistent lack of impacting arguments to the resolution, turns the round into a “two ships passing in the night” experience rather than a high contrast debate round. When this happens, I am forced to insert my own opinion to choose a winner - which I very much don’t like doing.

6. Be professional and respectful. A lack of either of these makes your credibility drop significantly.

I am a more traditional or (as the circuit debaters like to say) "lay" judge. This is my first year judging, but I have judged different types of debate this year at local, regional and national tournaments. I have some experience judging this topic at the national qualifying tournament. I do not consider myself an expert on debate, philosophy or science, so I do not have strong biases or opinions. I will consider all arguments that are well-developed and non-offensive. That said, quality of presentation and delivery will have a strong influence on my decision. So to get my ballot, bring your "A" game in terms of public speaking and logical argumentation. Leave debate jargon and spreading at home. I look forward to judging your round.

Hello

My name is Parrish Eyre. I own a small Management Consulting firm specializing in Business and IT Process reengineering. I have no formal training in debate but absolutely love it and have the greatest amount of respect for those that are willing to step up the the mic and articulate an argument.

From an experience perspective I spent 4 years as a University student grade/infraction appeal judge and a traffic court judge.

If you read nothing else: be respectful to one another. You will not win if you are not kind.

For LD Sections Debate:

I am not an expert in LD. Take it easy, and treat me as a lay judge here. A lot of the same points mentioned below about PF apply to a typical LD round in some form. Debate definitions first, and explain everything.

Thoughts: I believe every argument you make must be founded on evidence and research. Arguments with no sources won't be weighed. If a team introduces evidence that is found to be outright falsified, the round ends in a loss for that team and a discussion between myself and their coach. It is every competitor's responsibility to ensure your teammates and your opponents are properly using evidence.

I judge based on the evidence and arguments presented in the round. That means if your opponents argue that the sky is green, and you don't question them or their evidence, then the sky is green.

Things I like in debate:

-Clear frameworks. This is how I will vote, and usually means defining key parts of the resolution and presenting a weighing mechanism.
-Weighed impacts. How do your impacts stack up against your opponents'? Tell me explicitly, especially in summary and final focus.
-Organized arguments. Signpost. I can better keep track of organized arguments, helping you win.
-Critical thinking. Point out logical inconsistencies, make sure your opponents aren't misrepresenting evidence, etc.
-Unique arguments. As long as your evidence and logic are solid, these can be fun. Make sure they're in the scope of the resolution.

Things I don't like in debate:

-Non-topical arguments. Often called "Kritics" or "K's," these do not fly with me. You have a resolution, debate it.
-Shot-gunning evidence. One good source is always worth more than a dozen poor sources.
-Argument spreading. “Judge, they dropped our third and tenth contention, so you must vote for us.” I will not.
-Talking too fast. Slow down. There is no need to yell. If I can actually write down everything you say you'll be better off.
-New arguments after rebuttals. I may consider new evidence if you are asked for it, but brand-new arguments won't be considered.
-Falsifying or supported evidence.

Feel free to ask me any questions you have before or after the round. We are here to grow and learn new skills.

Lastly, good luck and have fun :)

A little about me:

Currently coaching: Sage Hill School 2020-Present

Past Coaching: Diamond Ranch HS 2015-2020

I also tab more tournaments, but I keep up with my team so I can follow many of the trends in all events.

-

I prefer all of my speakers to make sure that any contentions, plans or the like are clear and always link back to the topic at hand. You're free to run theory or K at your peril. I've heard great rounds on Afro-pessimism and bad rounds on it. I've loved a round full of theory and hated rounds full of theory. All depends on how it's done, and what the point of it.

I am a social studies teacher, so I can't unknow the rules of American government or economics. Don't attempt to stay something that is factually inaccurate that you would know in your classes.

Be respectful of all parties in the room - your opponent(s), your partner (if applicable) and the judge. Hurtful language is in not something I tolerate. Pronouns in your names are an added plus.

Speaking clearly, even if fast, is fine, but spreading can be difficult to understand, especially through two computers. I will say "Clear" if I need to. In an online format, please slow down for the first minute if possible. I haven't had to listen to spreading with online debate.

For LD, I don't mind counterplans and theory discussions as long as they are germane to the topic and as long as they don't result in debating the rules of debate rather than the topic itself. In the last year most of my LD rounds have not been at TOC bid tournaments, but that doesn't mean I can't follow most arguments, but be patient as I adjust.

Truth > tech.

*It's work to make me vote on extinction or nuclear war as a terminal impact in any debate. That link chain needs to be solid if you're doing to expect me to believe it.*

In PF, make sure that you explain your terminal impacts and tell me why I should weight your impacts vs your opponents' impacts.

WSD - I have been around enough tournaments to know what I should hear and I will notice if you're not doing it well. Thinking global always. Models should always be well explained and match the focus on the round. Fiat is a tricky thing in the event now but use it as you see fit.

Debated 2 years at Downtown Magnets High school and 1 Year in College. I am familiar with both LD and Policy Debates.

Email: sebastiangandionco@gmail.com

I'm not the most experience debater, but I have a grasp of most concepts in debate. Explain at the end why your winning the debate.

· Add me in the email chain before the round starts

· I will not keep track of time and flashing evidence is not considered prep time, but don’t be slow

· I am experience enough, but find the middle ground in speed for important arguments later in the round.

· Flush out arguments and explain high theory well including the importance of the debate

· I’m more techy

· I like performance and K’s and T

· Framework needs to be clear and concise.

Kritik’s/K-Affs:

I like performances and kritikal affirmatives, that’s basically summarizes my preference on K-affs. I am not well versed in most hard theory kritiks. I ran Cap K mostly, but I’m fine with any other kritik’s if you explain them. Don’t be intimidated to run any hard theory kritik’s, but take the time to explain the arguments.

Policy Affs:

I like all policy aff’s except the most generic ones. The more unique the affirmative is the more likely I will like the aff and probably vote on it.

DA’s CP’s:

Disadvantage links is what I focus a lot on. The structure for the DA should stay the same and answering them should stay the same not tangled in a mess. I will consider who has a more a updated Uniqueness card. Uniqueness is the foundation of the DA, so the card must be relevant. I like all Cp’s even consult, Cp w/ planks, and 2nc cps are okay. Give me a good reason why to outweigh the Cp against the aff and answer the perm. A good net benefit could be the very reason you win on the CP.

Theory/Topicality:

Any theory is fine. Topicality is one of my favorite arguments so make sure to extend interpretation and counter-interps. I want to see both negative and affirmative topicality to be contested. If you run T as a time skew that is also fine. Debate is all about strategy and using the tools you have.

I dislike trick debate

Speaks/other:

My RFD's can sometimes be unclear so ask questions

Don’t be toxic. (less speaks). I always give high speaks so don’t worry about speaks to much

I value clear communication and appreciate a regular speaking speed. Please avoid spreading because if I can’t follow your speeches, I’m unable to judge you fairly as well. I also would really appreciate any and all acronyms to be explained clearly, even if it’s something that might be common, just to make sure I’m on the same page as you. Thank you!!!

hey!! im eliza. dont be a bad person. have fun!! add me to ev chain/ask questions: elizasgunter@gmail.com

DEBATE:

if ur a pf sweat:

defense is NEVER sticky!!

i will listen to prog (K, T, Theory, Tricks) but dont get ur hopes up! my threshold is pretty high

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

if ur an ld sweat:

i care about the value debate! sowwy :(

be as tricky as u want i love good tech ld (NOT U PFERS)

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

if ur a policy/parli sweat:

roadmap is so essential!

send ur speech doc... before ur speech

K T Theory are more than cool I lowkey expect at least one of them

weigh weigh weigh weigh weigh

SPEECH:

not much to say here imo. sure, content matters, but ultimately i feel like presentation matters more.

DEBATE: Please speak clearly and not too fast. I value evidence especially for bold arguments, refutation of opponents arguments, and respect given to fellow competitors.

SPEECH: Prove your interpretation to me, I go into every round with no agenda, and take my perspective out.

Don't spread! I'll get cranky!

Parent Judge

Speaking speed as long as its understandable

keep crossx substantial and don't get sidetracked

Do not use crossx time to look at evidence; limit only necessary one

No cutting off to intimidate the opponent too frequently

finally please be respectful refrain from yelling or being rude to opponents

ABOUT ME

Background: He/him/his pronouns. I competed in Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum and IEs for six years. I’ve also been judging local tournaments on-and-off for six years. I was not very competitive in high school (I mostly did Model UN lol) and learned more about debate through teaching and judging.

TLDR: I’ll flow the round and vote off what’s on my flow. Tech>truth. Generally, feel free to go fast with some exceptions (below). I consider off-time roadmaps a must, and when you’re responding to framework, please state it explicitly (e.g. “The order is 1) framework 2) on-case 3) two offs.”) Make flowing easy for me: extend, cross-apply, collapse and weigh. I like to see lots of clash and clear, warranted links. In general, I think my thoughts on debate shift around a lot over time, but I will try my best to keep this paradigm updated as my beliefs change. At the moment, I'm somewhat conflicted on how I feel about email chains and speed. Feel free to ask me about anything unclear before the round begins.

DEBATE, BY EVENT

LD: I do not consider value/value criterion to be mandatory. Feel free to simplify your framework debate to a general weighing mechanism; just make sure to be clear about it. Continue reading below:

PF (and LD cont.): I generally do not flow or pay attention to cross-examination. If you anticipate that there’s any chance whatsoever that some part of your theory position may depend on cross-ex, please let me know before the round begins. I will in no way count it against you if you don’t actually end up reading T. Accordingly, I consider cross-ex to be entirely your time to get clarification on your opponent’s arguments, call for cards and prep your next rebuttal. No need for theatrics to try to make your opponent trip up over their words or something; it won't be on my flow.

CX: I have not personally competed in this event, but have judged in the past. I don't have a particular approach to judging CX different from other debate events; I am a tabula rasa judge that's moderately comfortable with speed and T/K.

OPEN DEBATE

Plans/Counterplans vs. Contentions: I believe that the Affirmative generally gets to frame the debate. Usually, that will fall under one of the following two categories: 1) a topical plan versus the status quo or another competitive counterplan 2) AFF contentions in support of affirming the resolution versus NEG contentions negating the resolution. I prefer plan debate over contention debate, because I believe it structurally favors clash and good debate. Notwithstanding, I will vote for contention ACs but make sure to read clear, warranted, link chains and don’t assume you solve for all your impacts by fiat.

Theory: What is debate? What should debate be? If you want to win a theory position in front of me, be prepared to convince me of your answer to these questions. At the end of the day, the “rules of debate” are what the debaters themselves make of the activity. I subscribe to the belief that the reason that debate exists is because it’s (one of) the only spaces where students can make an adult sit down for an hour, listen to their ideas and take them seriously. To keep debate meaningful to that end, debaters themselves ought to be the ones to decide how debate is practiced and adjudicated. Theory is the primary tool for self-enforcement of what I see as made up, debatable rules.

When reading T, read an interpretation, violation, standards and voters. Read your interpretation slowly, and then repeat it again. Argue each of these points out and do not assume I already know what you mean if you just say “strategy skew is bad for education.” Be clear about what you’re saying and highlight points of nuance. When the round has multiple theory positions, it’s ever more important for you to argue why I should prioritize some theory over another.

Some specifics: 1) Outside the round, I am generally conditionality bad but it’s up to you to convince me one way or another. I tend to think limited conditionality is reasonable (e.g. the NEG gets one condo counterplan and one condo K). 2) Dispositionality means nothing to me. It should mean that the CP is unconditional unless the AFF perms, but as long as teams are reading dispo with different rules, the inconsistency makes the term useless. If you’re reading a dispo position, be extremely clear what the condition to kick is. 3) Disclosure as a practice is good, systematically abusive use of disclosure theory against small schools/new debaters is really, really awful. 4) Theory can be an RVI but that’s still up for debate, and usually shouldn’t come down to theoretical abuse.

Kritik/criticisms: I’ve read a couple and heard several different Ks in rounds, but be forewarned that I am absolutely not an expert on K. I am less experienced with performances than K of case. I like to hear fresh and exciting debate, but make sure I can understand what you’re reading. Make sure to have a clear link, impact, alternative and alt-solvency. Like with T, read your link slowly, twice.

Speed: My comfortability with spreading tends to vary based on how active I’ve been in the speech and debate community. If my judging record indicates that it’s been more than six months since I’ve last judged an open debate round, please check with me prior. Generally, any rate of delivery up to around 300 wpm should be perfectly fine – I can type well over 100 wpm – as long as you’re enunciating. If it becomes a problem, I will call slow/clear. For newer debaters: you may interrupt your opponent’s speech by stating “slow” or “clear” if you can’t hear them. If your opponent doesn’t acknowledge your request, you may consider reading a “theory” argument that they ought to lose the round for disregarding basic debate etiquette. Debaters planning to be toxic and spread a new debater out of a round: be forewarned, my threshold for voting on such T shells is low.

Other: Do not neglect signposting. If you blitz through your arguments, I can get lost in my flow if you don’t make it easy for me. If whatever you argue isn’t on my flow, I cannot and will not consider it in my decision. I highly recommend that you read author and year slowly and twice before each card. Make it crystal clear where your warrant ends and where analytic or impacts begin. I expect that counterplans are competitive. I will vote on a perm for non-competitive counterplans. Impact calculus is magnitude, scope, timeframe, probability and reversibility. All of the above are important. I will default to weighing them about equally until/unless you argue otherwise and give me reasons to prefer one (or more). One of my biggest debate pet peeves: Debaters wasting precious rebuttal minutes on the framework debate unnecessarily (e.g. when you’re going for two different, highly specific forms of utilitarianism but your impacts weigh equally regardless of which one wins). I think I have moderately expressive non-verbals. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 very poor 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should be in late elims, 30 you are in the top 1% of debaters I’ve seen.

NOVICE DEBATE

Be respectful of your opponents and do your best. The most important thing is to have fun and learn! If your opponent is doing something really abusive in the round, I will vote on theory. For new debaters, this means that you can argue that they ought to lose the debate for being abusive. Do not under any circumstances read frivolous T in novice. Do not read K. Do not spread unless you have explicitly checked with your opponent and they have OKed it. See the “Speed” portion of my paradigm above. Make sure to signpost clearly and I highly recommend that you say author/year twice for every card. Weigh out the impacts of the round and read voting issues (explain to me why your impacts are more important than your opponent’s, and why you should win). Use all your prep time and don’t concede rounds even if you think you’re losing. You never know what’s happening on my flow, and mine is the one that ultimately matters. Speaker points if the tournament does not provide a standard rubric: below 25 you did something despicable or otherwise awful, 25-25.9 lot of room for improvement, 26-26.9 below average, 27-27.5 average, 27.6-28 good, 28-28.9 you should break, 29-29.9 you should probably be in open, 30 no, but seriously, why are you in novice?.

Be respectful. I vote for quality complete arguments that make sense and prefer both teams to be engaged with the opponents arguments as well. I will only evaluate the debate after the end of 2AR.

About me:

she/her

Apart of the Cal State Fullerton Speech and Debate team

----

email chains:

anniskaculi@icloud.com

I’m a lay parent judge. I’ll be taking notes during the debate and so please signpost your arguments. Don’t talk too fast and make sure you maintain eye contact throughout your speech. Have solid links between your arguments and your impacts, and in your final speech, make it very clear why you think you should win. Be polite to everyone in the room, keep the debate interesting, and have fun.

This is geared to Parli debaters...

I'm a debater's parent, but I like and respect arguments. I have watched a lot of rounds and PRs, and learned/read/thought about parli more than the average lay parent (as far as I can tell).

Reach an agreement among the teams on you will indicate a POI.

How to win:

Talk to me not at me. Debate is about persuasion, convince me!

Use clear and compelling arguments with links to important impacts.

Roadmap. Define relevant terms. Signpost. Impact. Weigh.

I believe that debate should be used to strengthen ones ability to construct, and effectively relay, a point of view by using clearly explained and expressed evidence for support. What one learns from participating in debate can be used in our everyday social interactions. With that said, there is no use for spreading or speaking like an auctioneer in the real world, such as a debate with family and/or friends or Congress. Competitors should be aware that there is a person (most likely not a professional debator) judging their case. That judge has to listen to the points given, process the weight of the arguements, and write down those points in real time. I believe that a few well thought out arguements are more powerful than rhetorically vomiting arguements at a rapid pace.

As a judge I am looking for a well structured, thought out, and delivered case, especially when judging a finals round. During a final round both teams will most likely have equally strong cases. Sometimes how the case was presented, and which team gave me what I needed the way I needed can be what tilts decision.

Overview:

I'm a former debater who focused on LD for my four years, competing at league, invitational, state and nationals. While I did compete in other events like Congress, Parli and Impromptu occasionally; my experience in other events is mostly limited to spectating and helping other teammates or judging them. Event-specific information on my judging style is separated below, but for a couple general points first:

• SIGNPOST in all events so I can understand and judge you properly. In debate events, this obviously takes the form of taglines and directly referencing the flow. But you do this too in speech/interp events, albeit in a more pretty and implicit way, by outlining the structure of your piece and using transitions when moving from one idea to the next.
• For debate events, I'll evaluate you in prongs: this essentially means I imagine myself as a panel of three judges with different judging styles and imagine how each of these judges would view the round. This is meant to 1) reduce my bias against styles I personally dislike and 2) encourage competitors to create cases and arguments that would satisfy all sects of judges rather than pandering to one style. Typically these are the archetypes of a lay, technical, and traditional judge. For transparency though, I was a traditional debater.
• Debate constructives should contain a clear round interpretation (observations like framework, weighing mechanism, definitions, plans, etc.) for me to evaluate the round on, warrants in the form of strong cut cards with impacts that link back to your round interpretation, and elaboration as to how your whole argument is significant to the resolution/topic and should make me vote with/against it.
• In all debate events, I want to see meaningful clash and extension throughout the round for rebuttal speeches on both the interpretation of the round and the warrants/impacts of each constructive. Balance offense and defense while explaining how each line of argument on the flow is going to impact my final decision.
• For final speeches in debate rounds (voter's, final focus, summaries, etc.) be strategic and prioritize the lines of arguments that you think will impact my decision the most and are the greatest chance at you securing my ballot rather than just listing off from the flow. Typically that means I want to see no more than 5 key issues, all of which reference previous speeches in the round. After all, the purpose of this speech is to condense the round, not expand it.
• In debate rounds, speaking style will never play into my ballot decision (*unless its a technical issue which prevents me from understanding you or it's World Schools*). After all, that's what speaker points are for. But once we get into break rounds, all that goes out the window because we aren't giving speaker points anymore.
• For debate rounds, I never disclose the result unless it's a break round. The most oral feedback I'll give in prelims will be maybe like one note for each side if I believe it can help them in their next immediate round. In parli/WS though, that would almost never happen since the topics change every single round. The only way I would give oral feedback in these types of events is if I felt I had a note that wasn't topic specific (speaking style, case structure, etc.) for both sides. For breaks though, in all events I'll typically ask the debaters if they want any spectators to step outside and then give a more detailed explanation for my decision.
• For speech/interp events, content and presentation are both essential for me and should somehow thoughtfully contribute to the overall purpose of your piece clearly. Include unique elements that are personalized to your style/background because you want to be memorable (in a good way of course). Technical errors (stumbling in your script, volume, etc.) can obviously hurt you, especially if everyone else in the room doesn't make these mistakes, but I'm not going to make you automatically last because of that unless it hinders my ability to understand you or be engaged in your piece. So keep going: if not for this tournament, then to practice for the next!
• Congress is a mix of debate and speech judging due to its nature, but keep in mind the key differences. I'm judging you on your speech content not to decide whether or not I support the bill/resolution, but rather whether or not you are meaningfully contributing to the discussion. And I'm judging you on your presentation/roleplaying not to be entertained, but to see if you're persuasive. Ultimately it's about leading the room to a healthy discussion and interacting with the other competitors strategically (whether that be as dissent or agreement) so you stand out *in a good way* among the 10+ of you that I all need to rank.
• Spectators are okay if every non-spectator in the room (judges and competitors) is okay with it. At some tournaments though, keep in mind you aren't allowed to bar spectators in break rounds. If someone is going to spectate, I expect them to be respectful (no talking, no electronic use, no notetaking, etc.).
• If you break the rules of your event (for example: introducing new arguments in the final speeches of debate rounds or using props in non-informative speech rounds), I'll ignore everything you attempted to accomplish with that rulebreak in my decision and may even weigh it against you.
• In debate events, I typically allow up to a 20 second grace period to wrap up a speech/answer. If you exceed that time, I'll assume you are unaware of your time, say "Time" and expect you to stop talking within 10 seconds. For cross-examination/crossfire, I'll do the same if you ask a new question after time has already ended. Also keep in mind if you try to use this grace period to begin new argumentation after time (like fitting in your last rebuttal in sparknotes form or giving an entire summary), I'm not gonna flow it.
• Anyone being explicitly hateful or discriminatory (racist, colorist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, anti-semitic, islamaphobic, etc.) will be voted down, given low speaker points and/or ranked at the bottom instantly.
• If your comments and RFDs are blank or short, most likely I missed the timeframe to edit feedback and wasn't able to submit them before the tournament closed because, as seen in this paradigm, I have a tendency to write too much! By all means, feel free to email me at akshaynmaharaj@gmail.com and I'll reply with a completed version. If you did get complete feedback but you still have some questions, you can also email me for that. Just make sure you include identifying info like the tournament, event, round and your code.

PuFo:

• As in every other event, signpost everything and say "Quote/EndQuote" as well as the citation for every single card.
• Please don't have a sole contention, especially if it also has subpoints. I can guarantee that you could divide into actual contentions.
• Off-time road maps are recommended but not required. If done, they should be under 10 seconds.
• As I said above, I decide through a three-prong strategy of imagining myself as a panel of a lay judge (emphasizing accessibility and logic), a technical judge (emphasizing line-by-line and evidence), and a traditional judge (emphasizing weighing and extension). Typically I'll tell you in RFDs what each of these judging perspectives would've thought individually so you can improve.
• Truth > Tech, but without judge interference. I'm not supposed to be voting for who I think is the "more skilled debater" but rather who successfully convinced me to take their side on the resolution in that isolated round. So while I won't consider any rebuttals your opponent could've made but didn't, I'm not going to expect them to respond to every single warrantless claim you make and weigh it w/o extension.
• For deciding who wins the round, I'll only ever base it on key voter issues given in final speeches (summary/final focus) because that's why they exist: you tell me what to vote on. Thus they're absolutely necessary in some form. The rest of the round is meant for you to develop those key issues.
• It only becomes necessary to weigh arguments myself when both teams fail to do so, and thus it's treated as a last resort for choosing a winner in rounds where neither team really did good. Since you don't want to feel robbed and I don't want to hear complaints in a round where frankly I'd give a loss to both sides, do everything in your power to provide specific voters and extend as much as you can. The less work I have to do to come to a decision --> the happier you'll be with it and the more consistent your W/L ratio will become.
• PuFo is the one debate event where I think clash isn't required in the NC. After all, both teams are allotted the same amount of speaking time and can't actually interact with each other until crossfire. Plus under the NSDA format, NEG/OPP can sometimes speak first while AFF/PROP goes second. With that being said, every other phase of the debate (rebuttal, summary and final focus) is expected to acknowledge all of the previous speeches and bears the burden of clash on the flow. This means that although the NC doesn't have to acknowledge and respond to the AC, I expect the AR to respond to the NC and extend the AR while NR responds to both the AC and AR plus extending the NC. This trend continues for the summary and final focus speeches. And I guess if we're in NSDA rules and NEG goes first, the same applies vice-versa with the AC not having to acknowledge the NC but the NR having to respond to the AC while extending the AC and the AR responding to both the NC and NR.
• For determining what is considered a new argument in rebuttal speeches, I generally follow this rule: Is it in direct response to something first said during your opponent's immediate previous speech? + Was there no earlier opportunity to mention it? + Given what you are attempting to accomplish through it, was there was no reason to include it in an earlier speech? If you'd answer no to any of those questions, it's a new argument and I'll discard it from my consideration. I'm most strict on this with final focuses for obvious reasons.
• After every refutation, on both sides of the flow, I want extension. Even when you claim your opponent dropped an argument, I want extension. Give me reasons why you winning that part of the line-by-line will matter in prep for voters.
• Compared to the questioning counterparts in the other debate events, I expect more courtesy for crossfire. Avoid follow-ups without consent and be sure to take turns. Dominating crossfire doesn't necessarily reflect good on you and could affect speaker points negatively.
• I expect both teammates to participate in grand crossfire. One teammate saying significantly more than the other can negatively impact speaker points.
• Events in crossfire are binding but will not be introduced onto the flow until mentioned in speeches.
• If no weighing mechanism is given by either side, I generally default to cost-benefit analysis. This isn't ideal of course, since it's pretty general and hard to apply. So please give a weighing mechanism so I can do my job more clearly!
• Similar to Parli (and I suppose CX if I unfortunately ever end up judging that), I expect teamwork and synchrony of ideas. Both teammates must carry their weight for extensions: ideas across speeches need to be so in synchrony that it's like one person has been giving all the speeches while still acknowledging that there's two of you on the AFF/NEG. One of the best ways IMO for you to accomplish this is directly referencing who said what on the flow during signposting (i.e. "As my teammate explained in our constructive . . ."/"During their last rebuttal, our opponents claimed . . ."). Similarly, passing notes can come off positively if you're entrusting an idea of yours to your teammate and they present it properly, or negatively if it's just an attempt to put your words in your teammate's mouth because they themselves have no clue what you need to say.
• If you're going to whisper during your opponents' speech, make sure it's low enough that only your partner can hear it. Otherwise, stick to nonverbal communication like writing and pointing. During prep time, this is less of an issue. The only way loud whispering could affect my decision though is through speaker points.
• On the other hand, speaker points are judged independent of your teammate. It doesn't matter if your styles contrast or are similar as long as they're both good. One teammate could even score low while the other scores high. The only way teamwork could factor into speaker points is if I notice you being rude to your teammate.
• No, I will not join the email chain and you shouldn't either: To be clear, I'm not talking about just sharing cards digitally upon request since that's basically the same as passing printed cards. What I'm referring to is sharing your entire case/speech beforehand because you know it's impossible to understand verbally or is poorly formatted. Or during rebuttals, you share a giant document of blocks, many of which you don't end up reading. If both debaters agree to doing an email chain I suppose its fine between them, but you reserve your right to refuse and demand specific cards be requested and provided traditionally (even if that means a debater has to show their whole laptop because they don't have paper copies). I, however, will never join the email chain myself because in this event I'm judging you on what you can verbally communicate, not by reading your speech and cards myself.

Congress:

I said most of it in the Overview section, so I'm just gonna give a general list of my Congress icks (AKA DON'T DO THIS)

• POs Trying to Correct Each Other --> I will intervene and stop that.
• Besides that, I will not intervene at all. If the round breaks from the rules, I will hold any offending Senators/Representatives responsible only in rankings and expect the current PO to intervene in my place. If that doesn't happen and the round runs off course, I will hold the PO responsible in rankings. Typically I judge POs on things like transparency (communication with the Senators/Representatives as to how you're running the round), fairness (even question and speech distribution), presence (your speaking style in commanding the room), and management (running the round according to the rules and on time).
• Unnecessarily Clashing (Especially with Competitors on the Same Side of the Debate) --> This is not a debate round, this is a discussion. It's not like I'm assigning wins and losses or holding you to a flow where you must respond to everything. In fact, I generally find decisions to agree with other competitors and expand upon their ideas intriguing. Only oppose other competitors if they go against what you are trying to stand for with your speech and if it will further discussion.
• "Some senators have argued . . . " --> NAMES. Names with everything. Being able to reference different competitors in the room directly has always been my favorite part of Congress. It shows you are actively paying attention to the speeches and serves as an invite for competitors to respond, thereby enhancing the discussion. I don't mind name dropping a bunch of your competitors if they've all been saying the same argument since it contextualizes who's on each side in the round.
• Disturbing Decorum--> We get enough of this in our real legislative bodies unfortunately, I don't need this in a mock round. Causing chaos or intentionally trying to be as controversial as possible will make you stick out, but not in a good way.
• Too "Debate"y --> Read my section on speech for some general tips, since speaking well is more than just speaker points and will affect your actual rankings. Besides that, remember you aren't assigned to a side and don't bear the burden of clash automatically. Technically in this roleplaying, the people you're supposed to be "convincing" are the people on the other side who you're arguing against. This means that if you're going to be combative or unwilling to budge from your position, you need to give a solid explanation as why it's important for you to take this stance.
• Too "Speech"y --> Just as a constructive can have a hook but still needs contentions, your entire speech cannot be just one drawn-out summary or repeating of one argument phrased beautifully. We need substance to base discussions off too, and that means making arguments for or against the bill/resolution that will deepen the discussion in the room.
• Exceeding Time--> Although I allow a bit of a grace period to finish your current sentence in other events, I expect competitors to respect the timing of the PO and yield if overtime no matter what. As soon as the gavel starts banging, you need to stop talking ASAP.

Parli:

• As in every other event, signpost everything and say "Quote/EndQuote" as well as the citation for every single card . . . if you somehow have them in parli.
• Off-time road maps are recommended but not required. If done, they should be under 10 seconds.
• As I said above, I decide through a three-prong strategy of imagining myself as a panel of a lay judge (emphasizing accessibility and logic), a technical judge (emphasizing line-by-line and evidence), and a traditional judge (emphasizing framework and extension). Typically I'll tell you in RFDs what each of these judging perspectives would've thought individually so you can improve. Because of the spontaneous nature of parli, the technical judge's standards of evidence would be lower as compared to other events.
• Truth > Tech, but without judge interference. I'm not supposed to be voting for who I think are the "more skilled debaters" but rather the team that successfully convinced me to take their side on the resolution in that isolated round. So while I won't consider any rebuttals your opponents could've made but didn't, I'm not going to expect them to respond to every single warrantless claim you make and weigh it w/o extension.
• It only becomes necessary to weigh arguments myself when both teams fail to do so, and thus it's treated as a last resort for choosing a winner in rounds where neither team really did good. Since you don't want to feel robbed and I don't want to hear complaints in a round where frankly I'd give a loss to both sides, do everything in your power to provide specific voters and extend as much as you can. The less work I have to do to come to a decision --> the happier you'll be with it and the more consistent your W/L ratio will become.
• For deciding who wins the round, I'll only ever base it on key voter issues given in final speeches because that's why they exist: you tell me what to vote on. Thus they're absolutely neccessary in some form. The rest of the round is meant for you to develop those key issues.
• On the other hand, speaker points are judged independent of your teammate. It doesn't matter if your styles contrast or are similar as long as they're both good. One teammate could even score low while the other scores high. The only way teamwork could factor into speaker points is if I notice you being rude to your teammate.
• For determining what is considered a new argument in rebuttal speeches, I generally follow this rule: Is it in direct response to something first said during your opponent's immediate previous speech? + Was there no earlier opportunity to mention it? + Given what you are attempting to accomplish through it, was there was no reason to include it in an earlier speech? If you'd answer no to any of those questions, it's a new argument and I'll discard it from my consideration. I'm most strict on this with the first speakers' second speeches for obvious reasons.
• After every refutation, on both sides of the flow, I want extension. Even when you claim your opponent dropped an argument, I want extension. Give me reasons why you winning that part of the line-by-line will matter in prep for voters.
• I expect the teams to clearly establish which type of debate (fact, value or plan) the resolution falls under. If there is a disagreement, clash over it AND explain the implications of either interpretation on how I'll judge the round.
• Definitions tend to be more annoying to me in parli than other events due to the volatile nature of the topics. Because of this, I'm more willing to buy arguments of the abuse, although you still have to explain why the implications of this definition are unhealthy for the debate and provide an alternative definition. If you feel you're being unfairly accused of abuse, the simple way to defend yourself from this is to simply prove the debate is still winnable for the other side under your definition.
• POIs are always acceptable to waive down, but there also an opportunity to get insight into your opponent's strategy and frontline. Waiving them down will only really reflect poorly on you if your opponents previously took significantly more POIs than you because they're a grace we extend to each other . . . but that would really only affect speaker points. The same would apply if there's a team imbalance in who's asking the POIs.
• Points of order (yes I'm not gonna call them POOs) should not be thrown around freely and only be brought forward when you believe a rule violation that could affect the round is actually happening. After all, it's not like I'm going to just give you an automatic win if I agree with your point. As I said above regarding rule violations, all I do is consider the round as if the sentences which provoked the point never happened. Time will stop during this, but keep the point of order and the defending team's response each within 15 seconds. So points of order should not be back-and-forth and should never exceed 30 seconds total.
• Similar to PuFo (and I suppose CX if I unfortunately ever end up judging that), I expect teamwork and synchrony of ideas. Both teammates must carry their weight for extensions: ideas across speeches need to be so in synchrony that it's like 1v1 while still acknowledging that there's two of you on the AFF/NEG. One of the best ways IMO for you to accomplish this is directly referencing who said what on the flow during signposting (i.e. "As my teammate explained in our constructive . . ."/"During their last rebuttal, our opponents claimed . . ."). Similarly, passing notes can come off positively if you're entrusting an idea of yours to your teammate and they present it properly, or negatively if it's just an attempt to put your words in your teammate's mouth because they themselves have no clue what you need to say.
• If you're going to whisper during your opponents', make sure it's low enough that only your partner can hear it. Otherwise, stick to nonverbal communication like writing and pointing. The only way loud whispering could affect my decision though is through speaker points.
• On the other hand, speaker points are judged independent of your teammate. It doesn't matter if your styles contrast or are similar as long as they're both good. One teammate could even score low while the other scores high. The only way teamwork could factor into speaker points is if I notice you being rude to your teammate.

Speech:

• Give me an outline no matter what so I know where your speech is going. The more natural it is --> The better received it'll be.
• If you're going to mention anything potentially triggering or traumatic (suicide, abuse, etc.) please give a content warning for the sake of your fellow competitors and if there's spectators.
• For the prepared speech events, I expect the speech to match the event, especially in CHSSA. Unless we are at NSDA or other tournaments where OA doesn't exist, I expect your speech to be either written as a clear OO in OO or a clear OA in OA with little overlap.
• Balancing your subject between the niche and important is essential. Your want your topic to be unique, but if it doesn't engage me at first MAKE me engaged and think I've learned something new when coming out of the round. I'm open to any topic: I'm not going to write something like "pick a better topic" or "this doesn't engage me because I can't relate." With me you have the ability to make anything interesting, just make sure you don't set yourself up for failure with a speech that isn't focused or has nowhere to go beyond surface-level.
• If you are struggling to remember your speech, KEEP GOING. I know it's embarrassing and feels cringy, but don't worry I will suffer through that cringe with you. You're never going to learn your speech better for future events if you just shut down.
• Although I dislike canning in impromptu, if you're going to do so: spend more time connecting your examples and elevating the prompt than explaining what your examples are. I can tell when you've rehearsed telling a story every single round, and trust me I will get bored.
• In extempt you need content AND presentation. All information should be organized to thoroughly answer and elevate your prompt.
• In the spontaneous speech events (extempt and impromptu), one of my biggest annoyances is when you warp the speech structure you outlined originally so that you can fill the rest of the time or finish in time. Everything should be thought out and properly paced.
• Self timing is only allowed in extempt and impromptu. For prepared speeches, I can give time signals if someone in the room requests them and everyone in the room will get them if done. Generally, I'll hold up one finger for one minute used, hold up two fingers when you're halfway through your time, and then hold up one finger again for one minute left. I will not give a time signal when your time expires, but that won't be a problem unless you go over the allotted grace period for your event (typically 30 seconds). Even then, I let Tabroom handle time penalization instead of factoring it into my own rankings, unless the tournament directly asks us to apply the penalty manually.
• In every speech event except extempt (since it's usually just one speaking competitor and judge in the room at a time), I expect you to perform to the house. Simply put, this means performing to everyone in the room. You treat us all as your audience that you need to engage, even your fellow competitors who aren't up currently, because that is the purpose of a speech unlike debate where you just need to convince the judge(s). So don't just make eye contact with the judge(s), treat everyone as an audience member.
• Hand gestures and posture should come across as calculated, meaning they enhance from your speech rather than distract from it. In moments I would prefer keeping your hands still than overusing motions with them unintentionally while you talk. With that being said, it will look a little unnatural if you're just standing there for prolonged periods of time like that one emoji, so keep a good balance.
• Speaking style (like tone, facial expressions, posture/gestures, etc.) should match the content of your speech. So when you're giving multiple layers to your speech (which I would definitely recommend doing), that means your speaking style needs to change naturally to suit the content whenever necessary.

Interp:

• If you're going to perform anything potentially triggering (suicide, abuse, etc.), please give a content warning for the sake of your fellow competitors and spectators if they're present. I'm looking at you DI . . .
• Your tone should match your event. Obviously HI should be humorous and DI should be dramatic. If you include elements of a contrasting tone occasionally, they should be in service of achieving your primary tone.
• POIs and Duos can vary in tone, but they should take advantage of their unique format (i.e. combining multiple sources or two performers).
• Half the battle is picking and creating a good script, so you are accountable for the quality of it in addition to your performance. It should be clear to understand, memorable in its purpose, be a good fit for your identity/personality, etc.
• Characterization through mannerisms and voice is essential, especially if you are performing multiple characters so they're distinct.
• Scene transitions can be nice but aren't necessary as long as it comes across when we're changing scenes.

LD:

This is my area of expertise, so obviously this section is gonna be the longest. But I don't want to one of those judges with the paradigms that are impossible to read when you get Tabroom postings 5 minutes before the round, so here's a not-so-short summary of the most important parts:

• As in every other event, signpost everything and say "Quote/EndQuote" as well as the citation for every single card.
• Off-time road maps are recommended but not required. If done, they should be under 10 seconds. Afterwards when moving into their speech, the debater should make clear when exactly they have begun time.
• As I said above, I decide through a three-prong strategy of imagining myself as a panel of a lay judge (emphasizing accessibility and logic), a technical judge (emphasizing line-by-line and evidence), and a traditional judge (emphasizing framework and extension). Typically I'll tell you in RFDs what each of these judging perspectives would've thought individually so you can improve.
• Truth > Tech, but without judge interference. I'm not supposed to be voting for who I think is the "more skilled debater" but rather who successfully convinced me to take their side on the resolution in that isolated round. So while I won't consider any rebuttals your opponent could've made but didn't, I'm not going to expect them to respond to every single warrantless claim you make and weigh it w/o extension.
• For deciding who wins the round, I'll only ever base it on key voter issues given in final speeches because that's why they exist: you tell me what to vote on. Thus they're absolutely necessary in some form. The rest of the round is meant for you to develop those key issues.
• It only becomes necessary to weigh arguments myself when both debaters fail to do so, and thus it's treated as a last resort for choosing a winner in rounds where neither debater really did good. Since you don't want to feel robbed and I don't want to hear complaints in a round where frankly I'd give a loss to both sides, do everything in your power to provide specific voters and extend as much as you can. The less work I have to do to come to a decision --> the happier you'll be with it and the more consistent your W/L ratio will become.
• For determining what is considered a new argument in rebuttal speeches, I generally follow this rule: Is it in direct response to something first said during your opponent's immediate previous speech? + Was there no earlier opportunity to mention it? + Given what you are attempting to accomplish through it, was there was no reason to include it in an earlier speech? If you'd answer no to any of those questions, it's a new argument and I'll discard it from my consideration. I'm most strict on this with the AR2 for obvious reasons.
• After every refutation, on both sides of the flow, I want extension. Even when you claim your opponent dropped an argument, I want extension. Give me reasons why you winning that part of the line-by-line will matter in prep for voters.
• Can I keep up with spreading? Yes, assuming you're good at it and can still enunciate properly. Do I want to? NO. I won't instantly vote you down for it, but expect low speaker points. I also won't say "clear" or whatever if I can't understand you, I'll just stop flowing. Besides, cases that require spreading tend to be weaker in LD just because the event prioritizes key voter issues and framework over card quantity.
• CHSSA rules don't allow plans, but NSDA does. I'll follow the rules of whatever ruleset the tournament is being held under. With that being said however, there's a difference between plans/counterplans and advocacies/counter-advocacies and plans are still unnecessary under NSDA rules.
• For circuit tactics like theory, Kritiks, link to extinction arguments, plans/counterplans, etc: I won't vote you down instantly but know that I generally hold these to a higher standard just because the majority of bad circuit debaters use these tactics to actively avoid clash and secure "automatic" wins. If you're going to do them, do them RIGHT. I'd highly recommend reading the section for what you to plan to run.
• CX is binding but cannot be considered in the round until a speech introduces events from it onto the flow and extends it for me. It's also one-way, with the questioner being allowed to cut off their opponent and the answerer being expected to respect that.

Constructive Formatting:

• Greetings with your name aren't necessary, but if it's your style I get it. All I expect is for you to state the resolution and your side.
• Hooks can be nice if done properly but are by no means necessary. Only do them if you have a good one that can further your point.
• Signpost at the beginning of each observation.
• Every contention and subpoint needs a tagline, which must be signposted.
• Please don't have a sole contention, especially if it also has subpoints. I can guarantee that you could divide into actual contentions.
• Contentions/subpoints should include properly cut cards which are verbally cited w/ at least a source (author/organization) and year and clearly divided from elaboration/paraphrasing through the use of "Quote/EndQuote."
• Summaries at the end are appreciated and recommended but not required.
• The NC is expected to be shorter so you have time to address the entirety of the AC. Clearly denote when you switch sides of the flow.
• End your speech by opening yourself to CX.

Definitions:

• Only define words outside the resolution if you feel they're needed to understand your case. This includes uncommonly-heard abbreviations and extremely technical language.
• Definitions need to be directly quoted and fully cited. You can paraphrase after reading a card, but the basis of your definition must absolutely come from a card.
• If you want to extrapolate specific observations for the debate from a definition, do it as a frontline rather than strategically leaving first mention until rebuttals. This gives your opponent a fair window to address it.
• There's nothing that drags the debate down more than a pointless definitional debate. Don't waste your time arguing between slightly different wording of the same idea. Only challenge definitions if you think they could impact the actual debate and my decision.
• If you are going to challenge a definition, you must do three things: 1) explain why your opponent's definition is inapplicable or unhealthy for the debate and shouldn't be considered --> 2) provide an alternative definition (mostly applies to NC only, new definitions shouldn't be provided in rebuttals) --> 3) explain why your definition is better than your opponents.
• Generally I consider definitions abusive if they take away all ground from your opponent and make it impossible to win the debate as long as your opponent fully extends it. Abusive definitions will never be actively rewarded and I will try to side against them, but I can't do so unless you enable me to do so by properly refuting the abusive definition. Even if the abusive definition goes through or is overturned, it doesn't guarantee the win either way.

Framework:

• Some type of framework is absolutely necessary in LD, but it doesn't have to be a value + value-criterion. I've seen values by themselves work. I've even seen successful cases that just have a standard. As long as your framework can clearly explain how my weighing of the debate will operate and act as a mechanism/lens for me to judge the round through, it's fine. Just know v+v/c is popular because it works well.
• Values are general principles that should be universally upheld while value-criterions are topic-specific ways to measure/achieve the value through affirming/negating the resolution. Both can be attacked during rebuttals.
• I like framework debates but, like with definition debates, please make sure they lead somewhere. Only focus on the framework debate if you think it will make or break my decision. There is nothing wrong with collapsing frameworks if they are basically the same because in these cases you win by arguing how you uphold the framework better.
• With every criticism of your opponent's framework, explain how your framework is better and avoids these problems.
• Double blocking is a good but not foolproof strategy when done properly, but make sure you carry it throughout the round.
• Every argument/contention should be linked back to and weighed through framework.
• Unless framework was truly nonexistent in the round, it should almost always be a voter issue.

Cross-Examination:

• In LD CX is a one-way questioning period that we extend to each other. When getting questioned, you're expected to respect the time of your questioner and in turn they are expected to do the same for you during your questioning.
• In other words: if you're conducting a cross-examination, you have free reign to cut your opponent off. Of course doing this in a respectful way will lead to better speaker points, but still be forceful if necessary.
• And that also means if you're getting cross-examined, respect the time of your opponent if they want to interject, respond to the question in front of you, and never try to speak over them.
• I prefer you face me the majority of the time, but I won't judge you if you look at your opponent since a lot of lay judges post-COVID think the opposite. At most, it could affect speaker points (and probably only if you fully turn 90 degrees from me and make zero eye contact).
• If you're cross-examining, please make sure you give an actual question to answer. You can leave your argumentative statements for your speech.
• Events in CX are binding but will not be introduced onto the flow until mentioned during speeches.

Rebuttal Structure (Second Half of NC + 1AR + NR + 2AR):

• This should be obvious but no new arguments introduced. Everything said needs to be an extension of previous speeches or in direct response to something said during your opponent's previous speech. If your opponent makes a new argument, point it out so I can exclude it from weighing, minimize my intervention, and ensure my judgement is fair.
• Move through the flow in a logical manner (one side then the other, observations first and then contention-by-contention, etc.) with signposting. This is where I appreciate off-time road maps the most since they tell me the order you'll be going in.
• Framework needs to be interacted with in some form, be it as concession, collapse or a framework debate.
• A2s and cards can provide concise responses and will definitely appeal to my technical lens since you're reading evidence against evidence, but they aren't required. Of course you can't just make a warrantless response back, but it's acceptable to refute a contention by pointing out the flaws in your opponent's own cards or interpretation of them. This is especially true for philosophical debates, unless of course you're arguing over what a specific philosopher actually believed.
• I get so annoyed by debaters who overuse dropping. Just because your opponent responded to the whole contention and not a specific card doesn't mean the entire contention flows through --> It just means that specific card flows through, assuming of course nothing your opponent said during their rebuttal could be easily applied to it. Do not cry "dropped" lightly because I, through my flow, will know whether or not it was actually dropped. And even if it was actually dropped . . . then what? Extend and tell me how this argument flowing through helps you win the round. This isn't a point system. If your opponent drops your nine weak subpoints but manages to win the one argument that outweighs them all and actually matters, then they're going to win!
• In fact I think choosing to ignore weak contentions in favor of prioritizing the bigger arguments is good, as long as it comes from a place of strategy and not inability to keep up the flow. Hit every part of the line-by-line of course, but there's more ways to respond to an argument than just trying to refute it.
• Turns are encouraged as long as they are done properly and fully extended out.
• I encourage double blocking if possible so that you don't have to win every single line of argument.
• After successfully defending your own contentions, take the opportunity to extend them.
• Your final rebuttal speech must include voter issues that you've been extending throughout the entire round. Weigh the most important arguments of the round and give me a clear list of reasons why I ultimately vote for your side.

Plans/Counterplans vs. Advocacies/Counter-advocacies:

• NSDA allows plans/counterplans, so they're acceptable at tournaments under NSDA rules. In these rounds, I will put aside my biases and consider them valid. With that being said, a plan forces you to a higher standard of evidence & specificity, and I will still need to determine whether or not your plan/counterplan actually affirms or negates the resolution at hand.
• CHSSA rules ban plans/counterplans, and I will uphold this rule at any tournament under CHSSA rules. Like with new arguments, call your opponent out on this so I can exclude it from weighing, minimize intervention, and ensure fair judgement.
• With that being said, there are certain rounds where I'd have to ignore this rule to be able to judge it: If you respond to a plan under CHSSA rules without calling it out for being illegal, you give it validity as an argument and I am now forced to only weigh off the rebuttals you provided. So please, check which ruleset the tournament is under and call out plans under CHSSA when you see them!
• With that being said, many debaters in LD often misunderstand what a plan/counterplan is (which makes sense since LD isn't a format you see them often) and confuse it with an advocacy/counter-advocacy. Basically there are four key differences: 1) a plan typically pre-emptively provides specific means of implementation (a reference to an existing piece of legislation or an original ABC format with enforcer, funding, timeframe, etc.) while an advocacy is just a general idea of what we should do --> 2) plans include aspects that aren't completely guaranteed by fiating the upholding or rejection of the resolution yet attempt to claim benefits from them --> 3) a plan can only be compared to another plan or the status quo, while an advocacy can just be shown as generally bad --> 4) most importantly, plans shifts the focus of the debate from the topic to the plans because, while in plan debates you only need to defend the plan you provide, advocacies/counter-advocacies are used in argumentation about whether we should affirm or negate the resolution.
• Basically CHSSA bans plans/counterplans in LD (which full disclosure I agree with) because plans seek to avoid the value debate of the resolution by limiting their burden and the scope of the topic to something so specific that it's unfair to expect debaters to anticipate the hypothetical world their opponent creates, especially given the constraints of the format. On the other hand, advocacies/counter-advocacies, assuming they are actually those and not plans of course, are healthy for the debate because they are primarily used to clarify what each side wants to and can achieve in their world based on the resolution's presence without guaranteeing they will.
• Despite their differences, they do have one thing in common: mutual exclusivity is required for offensive use. In order for it to be a reason to vote for you over the other side, the plan/advocacy must only be possible in either a world where I affirm the resolution if you're aff or negate it if you're neg.
• Defensive use of plans/advocacies does not have the same requirement of mutual exclusivity, but keep in mind it can only ever minimize, not turn, the impact of the original target argument since you're basically just showing an alternative solution.

Circuity Stuff:

• Full Disclosure: I personally dislike circuit debate. Again I will do my best to put this bias aside for fairness sake and give circuit debaters a chance, but I do have to be strict with these arguments since they are often used just to avoid clash over the resolution.
• Can I keep up with spreading? Yes, assuming you're good at it and can still enunciate properly. Do I want to? NO. I won't instantly vote you down for it, but expect low speaker points. I also won't say "clear" or whatever if I can't understand you, I'll just stop flowing. Besides, cases that require spreading tend to be weaker in LD just because the event prioritizes key voter issues and framework over card quantity.
• As a general piece of advice for any debater who knows they struggle with understanding spreading, I recommend asking your opponent if they will be spreading beforehand. Since this doesn't involve disclosing case material, I generally believe debaters should be obligated to answer. If there's any hint of spreading, set a baseline. This essentially just involves you handing any paragraph of text to your opponent, having them read at their normal speech, and saying when you can understand them as they adjust their speed. Not only will this set your expectations and protect you from ambush spreading, but it also becomes much easier to delve into theory if necessary. Obviously, do not abuse this. I'll just think it's an act if either a) you ask them to slow below conversational speed or b) you talk faster than them.
• Even if you run a plan, I will judge it like an advocacy (read the section above if you're confused what I mean). It cannot stand on its own. It still needs to prove why I should affirm or negate the resolution because that's what I'm judging, not a policy round.
• No, I will not join the email chain and you shouldn't either: To be clear, I'm not talking about just sharing cards digitally upon request since that's basically the same as passing printed cards. What I'm referring to is sharing your entire case/speech beforehand because you know it's impossible to understand verbally or is poorly formatted. Or during rebuttals, you share a giant document of blocks, many of which you don't end up reading. If both debaters agree to doing an email chain I suppose its fine between them, but you reserve your right to refuse and demand specific cards be requested and provided traditionally (even if that means a debater has to show their whole laptop because they don't have paper copies). I, however, will never join the email chain myself because in this event I'm judging you on what you can verbally communicate, not by reading your speech and cards myself.
• Theory: Signpost and include all components (the interpretation, violation, standard, and voters). But like with all claims of abuse, it won't secure guaranteed wins and can only be used to win lines of arguments that still must be extended and weighed. This is because I basically always default to "drop the argument" instead of "drop the debater," so you need to give me a pretty convincing reason in extreme circumstances to convince me to overturn my paradigm. Also, if you argue theory, it better be related to something your opponent specifically did during the round and not to just debate in general . . . as then, not only are you wasting my time, but you're claiming to everyone who chose voluntarily to be here, including yourself, that this whole debate is an unfair waste of time.
• Ks: They absolutely must be topic-specific, and you must explain how negating the resolution or dropping your opponent's argument is the only way to avoid making this fundamental incorrect assumption. Also, all standards of evidence go out the window once you get to this level of esoteric philosophy. So don't waste my time reading some dumb K about how extinction is good and solves everything on a debate about voting rights because I'm sure at that point I'll buy anything your opponent says.
• Running any circuit argument does not absolve you from the normal duties a debater must perform. You still need to debate the resolution, obey the rules, respond to your opponent's arguments, and weigh the round with key voter issues.
• If you're facing a bad circuit debater, still make an attempt to refute your opponents arguments and prove why you still have won the round. I don't want to have to end up voting against you and for your opponent just because you gave me no opportunity/basis to.

My name is Kenya R. Marshall-Harper, and I recently earned my Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate University. I am a secondary English, history, and English Language Development (ELD) teacher who has worked with diverse inner-city student populations for over 15 years. I am also an Adjunct Professor in the Graduate School of Education and Psychology at Pepperdine University. My research interests include K-12 education and equity, talent and leadership development, Girls and Women of Color, and Black and Indigenous student populations. This is my second year judging speech and debate tournaments, and I am very impressed with each speaker's perseverance and professionalism. When judging, I pay close attention to each speaker's tone of voice, clarity, and eye contact. I also pay close attention to their connection with the audience, thoughtfulness, and confidence in executing their task. I look for strengths and then offer recommendations based on my score determination. The critiques I offer connect to the reasoning for the score assigned to each presenter or team. Best of luck!

Cristian Medrano

Background: I used to do Parli and Congress all throughout my high school years. It's been awhile but I am mostly familiar with the rules and times. If it's anything else....uh I will try my best :)

To earn my vote (Parli or Congress) , you must show me that you are capable of using pathos, logos, and ethos in your argument and that your speeches have structure to them. Off-time road or explanation at the start are key to me. You argument must also be able to persuade any random stranger that would be listening as I am only basing my decision on the info in the round.(Also if you add jokes, puns, or witty lines that relate to your points it would different catch my attention). Please respect the opponent you may face, I do not look fondly nor do the rules at those who don't respect each other in Debate.

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit PF & Policy, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Please send speech docs to the other team and the judge WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will likely earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will likely earn will be 28. This only applies in TOC & Championship-level divisions.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will likely cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your likely floor.
5. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
6. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
7. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you go)

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will not be sufficient. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Send Speech Docs to the other team and judges with the cut cards you are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and as PF matures as an event, it is far past time for PF to follow suit. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids hunt for cards that they should already have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and/or just paraphrasing without the cut card readily available. To discourage these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives to encourage debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain or by some other similar means in a timely fashion (within the reasonable amount of time it should take to send those cards via your chosen means - usually a couple of minutes or so) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, you can earn speaker points up to 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, it is highly likely that the lowest speaks you earn will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have your cards ready before the round, or can't get them ready in a reasonable amount of time before each relevant speech, don't waste a bunch time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. If speech docs are not a thing you normally do, don't let it get into your head. Just consider me as one of the many judges you'll encounter that isn't prone to hand out high speaks, and then go and debate your best. I'll still vote for whomever wins the arguments, irrespective of speaks. Afterwards, I would then encourage you to consider organizing your cases and blocks for the next important tournament you go in a way that is more conducive to in-round sharing, because it is likely to be the expected norm in those types of tournaments.

Several caveats to this general rule:

1) the obvious allowances for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, or legitimate tech difficulties

2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score,

3) I will only apply these speaker point limitations in qualifier and Championship level varsity divisions - e.g. state, national, or TOC qualifiers & their respective championship tournaments. Developmental divisions (novice, JV, etc) and local-only tournaments have different educational emphases. So while I would still encourage timely sharing of evidence in those divisions, there are more important things for those debaters to focus on and worry about. However, if you are trying to compete for a major championship, you should expect to be held to a higher standard.

4) As referenced above, these artificial speaker point limitations have no impact on my ultimate decision regarding who wins or loses the round (unless one team attempts to turn some of these discouraged practices into a theory argument of some kind). I am happy to give low-point wins if that's how it shakes out, or else to approximate these same incentives in other reasonable ways should the tournament not permit low-point wins. The win/loss based upon the arguments you make in-round will always take priority over arbitrary points.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality.

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Please don't do it. As an activity, we can be better than that. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and hopefully will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentivize you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will likely get from me is a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your likely floor. The same relevant caveats from speech docs apply here (minimums don't apply if you're offensive, only applies to higher-level varsity, and it won't impact the W/L).

5. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level link & impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

6. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

6A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

7. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen an increasing number of rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y"). Also, Neg DOESN'T get to counterplan. Again, you can't specify anything, so neg doesn't even have the resolution to fiat. So, no actionable K alts and no CP texts (even if you call them a "generalized, practical solution"). You are stuck defending the status quo, absent a good role of the ballot framing arg for critical negs.

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, and if you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am likely not your judge for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle. Debate is a space where we shouldn't be afraid to talk about important and difficult issues, and opt-outs can too easily be abused to gain advantage by teams who don't genuinely have issues with the topics in question. There would need to be extensive use of graphic imagery or something similar for me to be likely to buy a sufficiently large enough violation to justify voting on this kind of argument. Not impossible, but a very high threshold.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it. And that also includes arguments about proper forms of disclosure. Teams that just post massive blocks of unhighlighted, ununderlined text and/or without any tags read to me as acts of passive aggression that are just trying to get out of disclosure arguments while not supporting the benefits that disclosure provides. Also, responses like "our coach doesn't allow us to disclose" or "email us 30 minutes before the round, and this counts as terminal defense against disclosure arguments" are thoroughly unpersuasive in front of me. I'm sorry your coach doesn't support disclosure, but that is a strategic decision they have made that has put their students at a disadvantage in front of judges like me. That's just the way it goes.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just as likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

8. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - Because PF Negs don't get fiat (e.g. no power to CP), I don't buy that Neg gets the power to fiat any type of action-based alternative. You can reject or maybe do nothing, and, of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want. But trying to fiat any action as an alternative (e.g. engaging in active resistance, or anything similar) isn't likely to fly with me, unless you can make a really solid ROTB arg to change what my vote means. This severely limits what you can do from the Neg in front of me. Be warned.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or even irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

9. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

10. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs & Paraphrasing. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

11. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

12. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be VERY EASY to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me (especially on the Aff when teams basically put the resolution), and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov/PMC: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp/LOC: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov/MGC: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Just listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

I have two years experience in policy debate at Downtown Magnet High School. I debated the climate topic (2016-2017) and education topic (2017-2018).

Email: cmiranda2300@gmail.com

School Email (if empty ignore):

General Notes:

• First and Most Important: I am returning from a break from debate so pref me at your own risk. I will do my best to judge the round fairly.
  
  Rounds judged:
  2023-2024: 22 rounds

• Speaker Points: I tend to hover around 28 by default.

• Spreading: I am not opposed to spreading on cards but when it comes to analytics I would appreciate it if you slow down.

Topicality/Theory:

I am not the best judge for these debates but I can vote on them if I am convinced there is a clear violation. Make sure your interpretations/counter-interpretations and violations are clear. Convince me that your impact is the most important impact in the round. If there are other theory arguments in the round then convince me I should value your argument over the others, otherwise I will default to topicality. T as a time skew is fine as well.

Do not spread any arguments that are not included in the document please. This is especially important for your standards and any turns/DAs.

Overall you may need to put more work into this argument if you intend on going for it.

DA/CP:

The UQ debate is probably the most important part of the disadvantage. More recent evidence is important and as long as the card is credible then that is enough for me. If you’re going to go for a nuclear war impact, please give me some context on how it happens. I will not give you an impact like that without any explanation. I find myself voting for structural violence impacts over nuclear war-esque impacts a majority of the time.

I usually do not have any issues with any CP you choose to run unless I am given a reason to. Net benefits can be a game changer for the negative. In general just convince me that your plan is better than the affirmative.

K:

I am not well-versed in the literature for most Ks so I would prefer that you explain your arguments well. Usually the most important arguments for me are the links and the alternatives. The links should be explained in the context of the affirmative. Some alternatives may be difficult for me to understand so I would appreciate some extra time explaining the alternative and what it does. If the alternative is in round solvency then make sure you give me a reason to prefer it over the aff. This means I would expect there to be a framing or a role of the ballot to help me analyze the round.

K AFF/Soft Left:

I am not well-versed in the literature for most Ks so I would prefer that you explain your arguments well. If you are going to perform or have an advocacy statement then I need to understand how you provide solvency. I would expect the aff to be in the direction of the resolution but if it isn’t then I would expect a valid reason why you are not. I expect both sides of the debate to provide their own framework and if they are similar then explain why your method is better.

Hi, nice to meet you!

In short, I've been debating for a while so I will understand most jargon and stuff. Therefore, feel free to run most types of arguments, don't be mean or use harmful rhetoric in round, do do impact calculus, make sound and logical arguments, and tell me what to look for and vote for. Off time road-maps are a good idea.

I'm sure all you are amazing, but I study public health and am deathly afraid of germs, so please don't shake my hand!

If you would like more information about me or about how I process debate, continue reading here:

General/Important Things on How I Judge:

-Call all Points of Order(POOs)in the last speeches. I will protect the flow as much as I can but calling them is best.

-Content warnings are generally appreciated because we do not know the background of all the people in the room.

-I'm ok with counter-plans (CPs), theory, and kritiks (Ks) and whatever arguments you can make against them

-I am not an expert on theory or kritiks, but generally, I can keep up. Make sure that you are thoroughly explaining your theory and your kritiks regardless because debate is educational at its core.

-Speed is ok, but let everyone in the room know if you are going to spread. If your opponent is talking too quickly, please call CLEAR (this means to say clear in an assertive tone and is a signal for the other team to slow down). If you are talking too quickly and not enunciating to the point that I cannot understand, I will stop flowing.

-Tag-teaming is ok, but be respectful. If you are puppeting your partner to the point of it being obnoxious and rude, I will drop your speaker points.

-Point of Informations(POIs): I think that it is polite to take at least one if not two.

Background on Me:

-I debated through college. I was not super-competitive in high school, but I have won tournaments and medals in NPDA, IPDA, and speech during my gap year (taking classes at a local CC).

Case Debate:

-I will try to be as much of a blank slate as possible (tabula rasa). Meaning that I will not intervene with any of my knowledge to the best of my ability. That being said, if you are saying lots of untrue things it might affect your speaks.

-Please have a clean debate. The messier the round becomes the more I have to go through and pick over information which increases the likelihood of some judge intervention.

-A few isolated quips will not win you the round. Make the debate clean and make it tell a story.

-Again debate is about creating a narrative, so collapse down and create the most compelling narrative you can make.

-Make your arguments logical and make sure they work together (ie. Advantages or Disads that contradict each other really grind my gears and happen more often than you would think)

Theory:

-It should make sense and be specific to the round.

-Throwaway theory is fine as long as you are specifically connecting it to what is happening in the round. (ie. don't run vagueness just to run vagueness, show me where the opponent is vague)

-Make your standards clear and explain it well. (Note: If you get a POI, I would suggest taking it.)

Kritiks: I think they are important to debate and I will listen to them, but because I am less familiar with them than some judges you might have, make sure you both thoroughly understand and can thoroughly explain your K.

-Do not make assumptions about others and do not run anything you already know is offensive and/or hurtful.

-People and emotions are more valuable than a win...and being offensive/causing emotional-damage probably won't get you a win.

-Like theory, make it specific to the round...please don't run something just to run it and not link it to the res.

-Please repeat the alt and take POIs. Ks can be hard and it is exclusionary not to make sure that your opponent understands what you are saying.

-Don't spread your opponents out of the round. If you are not clear or organized, it will be reflected in speaks or (depending on the severity) the way I vote.

-I will flow through what you tell me to and will vote on my flow. This means that you should emphasize arguments or links that you think are key to your Kritik.

Speaker Points: Generally, these are subjective...but I base them on a mix of strategy and style.

25: Please be more considerate with your words. You were offensive during round and I will not tolerate that because debate is about learning and it becomes very hard to learn if someone is not putting thought into their words (ie. please stop being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc).

26-26.9: Below average. Most likely there were strategic errors in round. Arguments were probably missing sections and did not have a ton of structure.

27-27.9: Average. General structure is down, but most likely the arguments were not flushed out and were loosely constructed with hard to follow logic.

28-28.5: Above Average. All the parts of debate are there and the manipulation of the arguments is there but unpolished. The basics are done well.

28.5-28.9: Superior. Very clear and very well done debate. However, most likely some strategic errors were made.

29-29.9: Excellent. Wow, you can debate really well. Good strategy and good analysis.

30: You were godly.

This paradigm was done really late, so it will be edited as I judge more.

Lay Judge; Talk no faster than conversational and explain your points to me. I will vote for the team that I think has the strongest argument at the end of the round.

*Varsity Speaks: Boost in speaker points when you compliment your partner in-speech - the more fun or earnest, the higher the speaks boost :) I've found this gives some much needed levity in tense rounds.

*Online: Please go slower online. I'll let you know if you cut out. I'll try on my end to be as fair as possible within the limits of keeping the round reasonably on time. If the tournament has a forfeit policy, I'll go by those.

Background: 3 years of college super trad policy (stock issues/T & CPs) & some parli. I coach PF, primarily middle school/novice and a few open. She/her. Docshare >

PF:

Firm on paraphrasing bad. I used to reward teams for the bare minimum of reading cut cards but then debaters would bold-faced lie and I would become the clown emoji in real time. I'm open to hearing arguments that penalize paraphrasing, whether it's treating them as analytics that I shouldn't prefer over your read cards or I should drop the team that paraphrases entirely.

Disclosure is good because evidence ethics in PF are bad, but I probably won't vote for disclosure theory. I'm more likely to reward you in speaks for doing it (ex. sharing speech docs) than punish a team for not.

“Defense is sticky.” No it isn’t.

Ex. Fully frontline whatever you want to go for in second summary in second rebuttal. Same logic as if it's in your final focus, it better be in your partner's summary. I like consistency.

If you take longer than a minute to exchange a card you just read, it starts coming out of your prep. Speech docs make sure this is never an issue, so that's another plug.

Collapsing, grouping, and implicating = good, underrated, easy path to my ballot! Doc botting, blippy responses, no warrants or ev comparison = I'm sad, and you'll be sad at your speaks.

Cleaner debates collapse earlier rather than later.

I'm super into strategic concessions. "It's okay that they win this, because we win here instead and that matters more bc..."

I have a soft spot for framing. I'm most interested when the opposing team links in (ex. team A runs "prioritize extinction," team B replies, "yes, and that's us,"), but I'll definitely listen to "prioritize x instead" args, too. Just warrant, compare, etc.

Other "progressive pf" - I have minimal experience judging it. I'm not saying you can't run these debates or I'm unwilling to listen to them, but I'm saying be aware and slow down if I'm the one evaluating. Update: So far this season, I've voted down trigger warning theory and voted for paraphrasing theory.

I'll accept new weighing in final focus but I don't think it's strategic - you should probably start in summary to increase my chances of voting off of it.

All else fails, I will 1) look at the weighing, then 2), evaluate the line-by-line to see if I give you reasonable access to those impacts to begin with. Your opponents would have to really slip up somewhere to win the weighing but lose the round, but it's not impossible. I get really sad if the line-by-line is so convoluted that I only vote on the weighing - give me a clean place to vote. I'll be happy if you do the extra work to tell me why your weighing mechanism is better than theirs (I should prefer scope over mag because x, etc).

LD:

I’m a better judge for you if you're more trad/LARP. The more "progressive," the more you should either A) strike me if possible, or B) explain it to me slowly and simply - I’m open to hearing it if you’re willing to adjust how you argue it. Send a speech doc and assume I'm not as well-read as you on the topic literature.

All:

If it's before 9am, assume I learned what debate was 10 minutes ago. If it's the last round of the night, assume the same.

Open/varsity - time yourselves. Keep each other honest, but don't be the prep police.

On speed generally - I can do "fast" PF mostly fine, but I prefer slower debates and no spreading.

Content warnings should be read for graphic content. Have an anonymous opt-out.

Have warrants. Compare warrants. Tell me why your args matter/what to do with them.

Don't post-round. Debaters should especially think about who you choose to post-round on a panel when decisions echo one another.

Having a sense of humor and being friendly/accommodating toward your opponents is the easiest way to get good speaks from me. Be kind, have fun, laugh a little (but not at anyone's expense!!), and I'll have no problem giving you top speaks.

If I smile, you did something right. If I nod, I'm following what you say. I will absolutely tilt my head and make a face if you lost me or you're treading on thin ice on believability of whatever you're saying. If I just look generally unhappy - that's just my default face. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Erik Pielstick – Los Osos High School

(Former LD debater, long-time debate judge, Long-time high school debate coach)

Parliamentary Debate Paradigm

Parli is intended to be a limited preparation debate on topics of current events and/or common knowledge. Therefore I would view it as unfair for a team to present a case on either the Government or Opposition side which cannot be refuted by arguments drawn from common knowledge or arguments that one would have been expected to have done at least a minimal amount of research on during prep time if the topic is very specific.

The Government team has the responsibility of presenting a debatable case.

The opposition team needs to respond to the Government case. In most cases I would not accept kritik of the resolution as a response. DEBATE THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH!

Parli should not involve spreading because it is not a prepared event. You can speak quickly (180 - 220 wpm) but you should be clear. Speed should never be used as a strategy in the round. I will not tell you if you are going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments.

Parli is not policy debate and it is not LD. Don't try to make it about reading evidence. I will vote based on the arguments presented in the round, and how effectively those arguments were upheld or refuted. Good refutation can be based on logic and reasoning. Out-think, out-argue, out-debate your opponent. So, yeah, I'm old-school.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm

I value cleverness, wit, and humor.

That said, your case can be unique and clever, but there is a fine line between clever and ridiculous, and between unique and abusive. I can’t say where that line is, but I know it when I see it.

Affirmative debater should establish a framework that makes sense. Most debaters go with the “value”/“value criterion” format, but it could probably be a cost-benefit debate, or some other standard for me to judge the debate. I want to see clash. The negative debater could establish the debate as a clash of competing values, a clash of criteria for the same value, or a clash over whether affirming or negating best upholds aff value with the neg offering no value of their own.

The affirmative wins by upholding the resolution. The negative wins by proving the resolution to be untrue in a general sense, or by attacking the affirmative's arguments point by point. I generally look to the value or framework first, then to contentions. Arguments must be warranted, but in LD good philosophy can provide a warrant. Respond to everything. I will accept sound logic and reasoning as a response.

I listen well and can keep up aurally with a fast delivery (200wpm), but I have trouble flowing when someone is spreading. If you want me to keep track of your arguments don’t spread. I won’t penalize excessive speed with my ballot unless it is used as a strategy in the round against someone who is not able to keep up. Debate is a communicative activity - both debaters need to be able to understand each other, and I need to be able to understand the debate. No, I will not tell you if you're going too fast. If I didn't understand an argument I can't vote on it. It doesn't matter if my inability to understand you is because you are going too fast or just making incoherent arguments at a leisurely pace. It is never my responsibility to tell you during the round that I can't understand your arguments. Ultimately, I’m old-school. I debated LD in the 80s and I prefer debaters who can win without spreading.

A good cross examination really impresses me. I tend to award high speaks to great cross examinations, cross examination responses may be part of my flow.

I generally don’t like theory arguments, but in rare cases I would vote for a well-reasoned theory or abuse argument. Fairness is a voting issue.

I generally dislike kritiks in LD. A committee of very smart people spent a lot of time and energy writing the resolution. You should debate the resolution.

Also, I HATE policy arguments in LD. LD was created as a value-based alternative to policy debate. The NSDA and CHSSA, still to this day, describe LD as a debate of values and/or questions of justice and morality. CHSSA actually went so far as to make it a violation of the rules to run a plan or counterplan in a CHSSA event. If someone wants to run a plan they should learn to get along better with others, find a partner, and do Policy Debate.

Finish with clear, concise voting issues. Talk me through the flow. Tell me why you win.

Finally, debate is intellectual/verbal combat. Go for the kill. Leave your opponent’s case a smoldering pile of rubble, but be NICE about it. I don’t want any rude, disrespectful behavior, or bad language. Keep me interested, I want to be entertained.

Hello! :D

I did speech and debate my entire time in high school, with a focus on IE and Congress. I've watched a lot of debate rounds over the years, but please treat me like I know absolutely nothing! I like to see well-outlined cases with clear evidence, values, contentions, transitions, etc. I take a lot of notes, and I always refer back to them when I make my decision.

There will always be clashing evidence and, instead of arguing the same point back and forth, please focus on the value/value criterion! It's my favorite part of debate, so state and connect them clearly throughout your entire case. If you feel like you're mentioning it too much, that's just the way I like it :).

Also, it's never impacted my decision, but presentation is important to me! I was a speech kid, after all. Enunciate, have good volume, good posture, etc. Whatever makes you look and feel confident at the podium.

Hi, my name is Anand. I am a parent judge with limited experience on the debate format, so

• You should speak at a conversational speed and try to convince me with evidence and reasoning why I should vote for your side.
• I would prefer it if you could speak at a slow pace.
• Please add definitions in your arguments. It would help a lot.
• Happy debating!!

I used to do debate. Economics and Education are my specialties.

I am not a lay judge. If you see me stop typing then go onto your next point

I will consider goofy arguments if they are better than serious ones. As long as they are debated correctly.

IMPACTS IMPACTS IMPACTS

PLEASE don't knock on the desk after each speech.

If you want feedback ask me after the round. I will not be writing long RFD’s.

If both teams agree I will judge a round off of double loss theory.

Do NOT spread. I will stop listening and start playing Clash of Clans.

Do NOT BS your information. I will know...

But if you can make it rhyme your score will be prime.

If you have a P.O.O. please say “Pause time Poop” That will be funny I think.

good luck.

Hello!

I am currently an assistant coach for Flintridge Preparatory, The Westridge, and Speech and Debate institute (SDI). I am also a former Public Forum Debater as well as Speaker in Dec, HI, DI, and Impromptu where I competed for 5 years.

PF

I believe in keeping Public forum debate in a format that is, as initially intended, in a format that is accessible to the public. That being said, rounds can still be techy and competitive as long as they are done with clarity and respectfully. I am not a huge fan of speed in PF but if your style had moderate speech that is fine, within reason (do not spread), as long as you maintain understandability and enunciate you are golden. I wouldn’t consider myself a tech judge but definitely not a lay judge either. I will be flowing and comprehensively listening, therefore make sure to your contentions and rebuttals flow through otherwise they will be dropped. Remember, state your arguments clearly (have clear claims and links) and DON’T FORGET TO WEIGH.

*Speaks: BE RESPECTFUL, this is an educational learning environment therefore it is not a space for yelling (passionate speaking is different), being rude to opponents, or underhanded comments. If I am distracted away from listening to content because of overly aggressive debating it may cost you the round. (Don’t Spread)

K’s

I am open to hearing these arguments as long as they can be justified and can clearly link in. I would highly suggest you only run K’s you are passionate about. (I will only mark you down if you are using these arguments in an abusive manner)

Have fun! I like solid evidence and opponents poking holes in cases. Pls dont get personal.

Hello,

my email is liamcryals@gmail.com

policy debater for 7 years so im fine with anything. I like Ks, antiblackness, and Orientalism. probably wont vote on fw or t

Policy Debater at CSU Fullerton 2 years (2009-11)

High Debate Coach for 3 years (2010-2013)

Debate Judge for 10 years (2010-present)

High School Math and Physics Teacher ( 2018- present)

Email chain: 1680super@gmail.com

Short version: I want to see and hear what you are good at doing. You pick your style and convince me that you know what they are talking about.

Brief recap of what general debater think of me;
A lot of people have pegged me as a certain kind of judge—crazy, in other words. While I may be crazy in the head, I don’t think that I judge rounds in a particularly different way than other judges. I, like other judges, VOTE for which team did the better DEBATING. How I come to this conclusion is much the same as other critics: I allow myself to be PERSUADED by the rhetorical force of one or another team’s ARGUMENT. You need to win an argument and a reason why that argument means that I should vote for you. Feel free to choose whatever type of argument you prefer. Virtually everything in the round is up for debate in front of me. But I will also be hesitant to vote on arguments that fly in the face of reality.

Some fine details;

(1) Kritik: Don’t assume that I have read and/or understood your author. If the argument isn’t in the text of the card, then you need to make sure that it is comprehensible in your analysis or explanation of the card. Also, remember that the evidence is not the argument by itself.

(2)How I flow: I believe in the debate. That is, I flow it, and I believe it occurs. However, I don’t even try to line everything up in the debate—I just flow from the top down on each sheet of paper (Excel spreadsheet). Know your argument and give detail on it, your analysis, spin, and articulation are all important and I follow that as much.

(3)Policy debate is like chess. Debate at a reasonable pace for yourself so that you don’t forget or drop arguments. Clash with the other team, debate is not in a vacuum. Debate with a lack of clash makes it harder to judge because I feel like have to intervention and connect the dot myself. Lastly, like in chess, you can’t win with all your pieces. You will have to lose some pieces, know what you are losing and wining in a sophisticated way.

(4) Value and meaning isn’t implied. You need to frame “Framework” how I view arguments and what I value. Tell me how you want me to see the round and why that is important over the way your opponent views.

Frequently Asked Question (FAQ):

Question: Can I read an aff without a plan?

Answer: Sure but do you really want to have a framework debate over policy implementation?

Question: I hear you’re a K guy and like K, I normally run DisAd and CP so do I need to pull out my K?

Answer. PLEASE DON’T. The worst thing you can do is run an argument that doesn’t fit your style and strengths. If you are a straight up, line by line, politic disad kind of debater then go for it. I don’t vote for the K anymore than I do the DisAd. A good argument with articulation and explanation will do you more than running something that you can’t explain.

Question: Is it true that you never vote on Theory or Topically?

Answer: I did the math, I have voted for theory or topically maybe 2.5% of the time since I started judging, that is like 4 out of 170 rounds. While it’s a hard sell because I lend toward looking at real in round abuse.

glhf

Experience: I have three years of experience in parliamentary debate, and am familiar with the structure and style of LD debates.

Argumentation: I want clear arguments followed by quality evidence. I expect debaters to engage in meaningful clash, which means identifying weak points in their opponents' arguments and explaining how these weaknesses either hinder their opponents' cases or bolster their own. Finally, I prefer arguments to be impactful, and will consider the weight of contentions over the quantity of them.

Time Management: I want you to talk a normal pace. I can understand if you speak quickly, but don't go too fast. I will also time you independently, and will give a grace period if time is up to wrap things up. From there I will respectfully cut you off if you continue on.

PF:

I did PF and qualled to gold TOC twice.

- if its not in summary it should not be in FF; extend links, warrants, and impacts please don't just say u can extend this

- Frontline turns in 2nd rebuttal, defense is sticky but I will not evaluate offense unless it is extended and implicated

- speed is fine. if you will be spreading send me a speech doc (harishri2021@gmail.com)

- sign post please

- tech > truth

• Ks and theory are fine if you run it well and explain (do not do it just to confuse ur opponents)

please for the love of god preflow before the round if I have to wait for you I will be spiced, possibly enough to drop ur speaks

MOST IMPORTANT: if you want me to evaluate ur turns then u must do a 180 degree turn every time you read one. (this is a joke but I will boost ur speaks for it)

Parli:

• make me laugh
• do not make up evidence

email: gabrielschuhl02@gmail.com

Hey, I'm Gabe (he/him)! I did LD at Ardrey Kell for four years, and now I'm a Junior at Pomona. I mostly did traditional debate, except for some circuit LD my senior year. I study Politics and Philosophy, so I'm a big fan of more philosophy-heavy cases!

Make arguments you care about, be kind, and interact with your opponent's arguments.

please don't spread.

Thoughts:

- warrant things! I don't wanna vote on blippy, underdeveloped arguments, so give me a clear link and impact

- also warrant your extensions! Phrases like "independent voter issue" or "they dropped my sub-point c" are not complete extensions. I'm fine if you want to make 1AR extensions briefer, but at least give a short warrant and impact

- I don't think traditional debate should imply simplistic/repetitive arguments. Read that case you really love! I'm happy to evaluate elaborate frameworks or more unconventional approaches to the topic as long as they're well-explained

- technical aspects of debate are important, and winning strategies usually capitalize on where an opponent has been less interactive (AKA I will be flowing)

- please weigh. final speeches should be focusing on your important arguments/collapsing, and comparing them to your opponent's

- engage with framework meaningfully. I'm not a fan of debaters just restating their own fw as a rebuttal to their opponent's

- I don't have a lot of experience with theory and definitely don't remember most common arguments, but I will still evaluate genuine concerns about someone playing the game unfairly

- I have a low tolerance for circuit debaters making the round inaccessible for traditional debaters. if you're unsure about your opponent's experience, ask them about their preferences before round

- debate is fun when debaters are funny

- keep the debate space safe. use trigger warnings as needed. don't make personal attacks, offensive arguments, or bigoted remarks or I will drop you

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 I'm lazy. 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(unless the tourney has their own policy).

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 .5 speaks boost. All evidence shared must abide in order to get the boost.
• For PF, I'm cool with paraphrasing cards but you better have a cut card version if someone calls for it.

PF:

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

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 :)

Michael Shurance

Debate Paradigm:

Framework:

Debate is a game. I won't drop arguments I disagree with or that are hard to prove unless they are inherently racist, sexist, or discriminatory in some fundamental sense which makes debate inaccessible. AGAIN INACCESSIBLE: An example of these would obviously be like (white supremacy, nazism/racial superiority,) I will drop anyone advocating for those positions. We all deserve respect and fairness.

Theory:

Theory is fine if theres actually abuse from the Aff (topicality, specs, ect) , or the neg, (such as a condo, or a pic). I will vote on a good theory. I generally don't think theory operates A prior unless it's about specific abuse, but if you say it operates a prior, and they don't dispute it, then it operates a prior. If its not then its a normal off case position that arguments for different rules and standards that my vote would help promote. Multiple theories are not good. If theres abuse, run a theory, and if you want to enforce a interpretation, run a theory non a prior, if it seems prepped im more suspicious. Don't time skew on purpose. I don't believe you should generally "drop" theories, but you can.

K's:

If the K links into the AFF's solvency, or their plan text in some fundamental sense, then its acceptable. The alternative needs to exist, and you have to explain why I shouldn't buy a permutation. A k without an alternative is just a harsh judgement of the status quo, which the aff likely agrees with. Unless you present an alternative world that passing the plan text leads to not being possible its just a try or die for the aff.

Aff K's

In order to run a K on the aff you need to prove that the resolution is so messed up; that you are ethically bond to not defend it, and that the fairness/education lost is outweighed by either your solvency, or by avoiding having to defend the resolution. It's a huge uphill battle, and ill likely vote neg on presumption.

Advocacies are not conditional in an ideal world, if you kick out off an advocacy Im much more skeptical on the aff as to why you needed to break procedural fairness in the first place, and may vote you down. Everytime you kick out of an advocacy you work against the K you ran, making it seem trivial or insincere. Its a slap in the face on people who actually have convictions about their kritiks. I generally don't believe you should argue strongly for K's you don't have conviction about, especially on the aff, and because you don't believe the framework means that my vote for the advocacy would have also been insincere which 1. hurts your solvency/ 2. destroys your movement. which turns your K into handwashing, and nothing more then a useless academic exercise.

Speed:

talking fast is fun, speeding is semi fine, but if you get slowed or clear'd please comply. I think access is very important.

Ballot:

Flow is very important on how I judge, whether or not your opponent did a good job attacking your position or argument weighs heavily in my mind. Key arguments are more important then quantity, but if you have alot of arguments ill weigh them as well. I really like case debate, if you can seek out and find clash you'll be rewarded for it.

Speech Paradigm:

Be polite and persuasive/funny/engaging with your speech, as hard as it is, try and be happy/excited to be here, and excited to share your speech/worldview/story.

I will likely judge heavily based on performance.

Please add me to email chain: Email: schirjeev@gmail.com

I am a lay judge. Go a little bit slower than you would usually just to make sure I get everything on the flow.

Hello,

I have been a parent judge for 5 years. Please speak slowly and coherently. Do not spread.

ALL DEBATERS:

▪ Lay judge, usually no flow

▪ Please signpost your arguments

▪ Please speak slowly and clearly

▪ Make your arguments easy to understand

▪ Link your arguments to your impacts

▪ In the final speech, make it very clear why you win (signpost!)

Cajon High School, San Bernardino, CA

I debated Policy for one year in high school a hundred years ago. I have been coaching LD for nine years, judging it for fifteen. I like it. I also coach PuFo and have coached Parli. I have judge two rounds of Policy as an adult and am not a fan.

LD: Briefly, I am a traditional LD judge. I am most interested in seeing a values debate under NSDA rules (no plans/counterplans), that affirms or negates the resolution. I want to see debaters who have learned something about the topic and can share that with me. I am much less interested in debates on theory. Engage in an argument with the other person's framework and contentions and I will be engaged. Go off topic and you had better link to something.

Parli: I definitely don't like to hear tons of evidence in Parli, which should be about the arguments, not the evidence. Please ask and accept some POIs, and use them to help frame the debate. Manufacturing of evidence has become a real ethical problem in Parli. I don't really want to be the evidence police, but I might ask how I can access your source if the case turns on evidence.

Public Forum: Stay within the rules. Don't dominate the grand crossfire. This was designed to resemble a "town hall" and should not get technical or be loaded with cards. It is a debate about policy, but it should not be debated as if it was Policy debate.

In more depth:
Crystallization: It's good practice. Do it. Signpost, too.

Speed/flow: I can handle some speed, but if you have a good case and are a quick, logical thinker, you don't need speed to win. IMO, good debating should be good public speaking. It's your job to understand how to do that, so I am not going to call "clear", and I am certainly not interested in reading your case. If you're too fast, I'll just stop writing and try to listen as best I can. I will flow the debate, but I'm looking for compelling arguments, not just blippy arguments covering the flow. If you're not sure, treat me as a lay judge.

Evidence: Evidence is important, but won't win the debate unless it is deployed in support of well constructed arguments. Just because your card is more recent doesn't mean it's better than your opponent's card on the same issue - your burden is to tell me why it is better, or more relevant. Be careful about getting into extended discussions about methodology of studies. I get that some evidence should be challenged, but a debate about evidence isn't the point.

Attitude: By all means challenge your opponent! Be assertive, even aggressive, but don't be a jerk. You don't have to be loud, fast, rude, or sarcastic to have power as a speaker.

Speaker points: I don't have a system for speaker points. I rarely give under 27 or over 29. I have judged debaters who have never won a round, and have judged a state champion. I am comparing you to all the debaters I have seen. It's not very scientific and probably inconsistent, but I do try to be fair.

Theory: I generally dislike the migration of Policy ideas and techniques to other debates. If you want to debate using Policy methods, debate in Policy. In my opinion, much of the supposed critical thinking that challenges rules and norms is just overly clever games or exercises in deploying jargon. Just my opinion as an old fart. That said, I am okay with bringing in stock issues (inherency, solvency, topicality, disads) if done thoughtfully, and I will accept theory if all of the debaters are versed in it, but you'll do better if you explain rather than throw jargon.

Kritiks: I don't care for them. They seem kind of abusive to me and often fail to offer good links, which won't help you win. Even if your opponent doesn't know what to do with your kritik, by using one you transfer the burden to yourself, so if you don't do it well you lose, unless the opponent is very weak. I generally find them to be poor substitutes for a good debate on the resolution - but not always. I suppose my question is, "Why are you running a K?" If it's just because it's cool - don't.

Other: Unless instructed to do so, I don't disclose decisions or speaker points in prelims, though I will give some comments if that is within the tournament's norms and you have specific questions.

Hello kiddos,

I have been in Debate for quite a few years. I am down to evaluate whatever arguments you want to run. I am not here to tell you what to run or how fast to run it. This is your show. I am cool with speed, ks, policy, procedurals, theory, or anything else you want to do. I wouldn't want you to think the round is about appealing to me, I think it is my job to evaluate the discussion you all have. Best of luck to you all.

I am an experienced judge. I am happy to evaluate any arguments you want to run. I have been judging for 10+ years. I don't have any preferences and am excited to see you all approach the round you want to.

Max Wiessner (they/them/elle)

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

email chain > speech drop/file share

*****

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

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

*****

about me:

5th-year policy debater at CSUF (I also do IEs: poetry, ads, and extemp). I've coached BP, PF, LD, and policy. Currently coaching LD and policy, so my topic knowledge is usually better in these debates. I would consider myself a K debater, but I’ve run all types of arguments and have voted for all kinds of arguments

• 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. Don't feel disincentivized to add more pages, just know better speaker points lie where the most knowledge is produced. clash/vertical spread >>>>>>

coaches and friends who influence how I view debate: DSRB, Toya, Travis Cochran, Kwudjwa, Beau Larsen, Tay Brough, Vontrez White, Cat Smith, Jay-Z Flores, Curtis Ortega

"Education is elevation" -George Lee

Some thoughts on specifics:

• Are we having a debate about debate? survival methods? education models? life? make that clear

• K on the NEG: don't fall behind on the perm debate. Contextualized/specific links good. Severance is definitely bad, both on a theory level and an ethics level, but you have to prove that it happened.
• Policy v K: I judge a lot of "clash" debates so these are probably the rounds where I give the most in-depth feedback. FW on the K should be a big thing in these debates. i <3 when teams can give me some examples of the alt and what it looks like bc basing everything only on theory can be....
• KvK: I love a method v method debate, but they can get messy and unclear, especially in LD so please focus on creating an organized story. I will never undermine your ability to articulate theory to me, so I expect a clear explanation of what's going on to avoid the messiness/unclearness (also refer to note above about examples of the alt/method)

FW v K’s:

I’m pretty split on these debates. I think in-round impacts matter just as much as the ones that come from a plan text bc debate is ultimately a performance and education is probably the only material thing that spills out of debate. With that, the affirmative needs to explain the relationship the aff has to negation and adjudication, and counter-interps are key for the AFF to win the education debate.

I have a pretty low bar for what I consider "topical", so arguments like (procedural) fairness aren't an auto-voter for me. I love creative counter-interps of the res, but I think the AFF still has to win why their approach to the topic is good on a solvency AND educational level (that means clash and education are persuasive args to me) You need to prove why clash generated by 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

Misc:

• don't steal prep. The timer goes off, stop typing/writing, and (depending on the format) send the doc or get ready to start speaking/flowing.

• I will not connect things that are NOT on the flow. I read evidence when I'm confused about something, to break the tie against arguments, or if it's specific judge instruction and something I should frame my ballot on. But, I will never make decisions for debates on arguments that have not been made.
• I love a good cross-ex. I will flow questions/answers that will frame my ballot, and this is a good time for ethos moments

stand on business

I like to see a lot of clash between arguments. I like it when competitors explain their argument and the impact of their arguments. I weigh heavily on the value criterion and voting issues expressed in the first constructive speeches, extending to the last rebuttal speeches. I do not like fast reading or spreading. I am OK with value debates, policy debate and philosophical debates.

Hi I'm Jalyn (she/her/hers), UCLA '24. I debated at WDM Valley in LD for ~7 years, and coached Millburn LD from 2021-2024.

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

____________

I honestly think that my paradigmatic preferences have gotten less and less ideological. I'll vote for anything that constitutes an argument. yes you can read policy stuff, tricks, and kritiks in front of me. i like phil but i'd rather judge anything else over bad recycled kant. I've left my old paradigm (written as a FYO) below as reference, cuz i still have the same takes, but to a lesser extent.

i give high speaks when you make me enjoy the round and drop speaks by like 0.3 every 30 seconds of a bad (read: unstrategic and not thought through) 2nr/2ar.

If there's an email chain, put me on it: wjalynu@gmail.com. In constructives, I don't flow off the doc.

TLDR - LD

Please note first and foremost that I am not that great with postrounding. To clarify, please ask questions about my decision after the round--I want to incentivize good educational practices and defend my decision. However, I really do not respond well to aggression mentally, so please don't yell at me/please treat me and everyone else in the round with basic respect and we should be good!

quick prefs (but please read the rest of the TLDR at least)

1- phil

2- theory, id pol k/performance, stock k

3- pomo k, LARP

4- tricks

for traditional/novice/jv debate: I'm good with anything!

i honestly do not care what you read as long as the arguments are well justified. less well justified arguments have a lower threshold for response.

I am fine with speed. At online tournaments, please have local recordings of your speeches ready in case there's audio issues/someone disconnects. Depending on tournament rules, I probably can't let you regive your speech if it cuts out, so be prepared. I will say clear/slow.

I rate my flowing ability a 6/10 in that messy and monotonous debates are difficult for me to flow but as long as you're clear in signposting, numbering, and collapsing, we shouldn't have any problems.

I view evaluating rounds as evaluating the highest framing layer of the round as established by the debaters, then evaluating the application of offense to it. In messy debates, i write two RFDs (one for each side) and take the path of least intervention.

i assign speaks based on strategic vision and in round presence (were you an enjoyable person to watch debate?). However, if you make arguments that are blatantly problematic, L20.

Many judges say they don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc, but know that I take the responsibility of creating a safe debate space seriously. If something within a round makes you feel unsafe, whether it be my behavior, your opponent's behavior, or the behavior of anyone else present in that round, email me or otherwise contact me. I'll do my best to work with you to address these problems together.

LONG VERSION - LD

Ev ethics

- If a debater stops the round and says "I will stake the round on this evidence ethics challenge" I will follow tournament/NSDA rules and evaluate accordingly (generally resulting in an auto win/loss situation). However, I usually prefer ev ethics challenges are debated out like a theory debate, and I will evaluate it like I evaluate any other shell.

- I really am not a fan of debates over marginal evidence ethics violations. like i really do not care if a single period is missing from a citation.

Disclosure

- I don't hold strong opinions on disclosure norms. Disclosure to some extent is probably good, but I don't really care whether it's open sourced with green highlighting or full text with citations after the card.

- reasonability probably makes sense on a lot of interps

- I strongly dislike being sketchy about disclosure on both sides. Reading disclosure against a less experienced debater without a wiki seems suss. Misdisclosing and lying about the aff is also suss.

- disclosure functions at the same layer as other shells until proven otherwise

Theory

- I strongly dislike defaulting. If no paradigm issues or voters are read by either debater in a theory debate, this means I will literally not vote on theory. I don't think this is an unfair threshold to meet, because for any argument to be considered valid, there needs to be a claim, warrant, and impact.

- You can read frivolous stuff in front of me and I will evaluate it as I would any other shell, but more frivolous shells have a lower threshold for response. For more elaboration, see my musings on the tech/truth distinction below.

- Paragraph theory is fine, just make sure that it's clearly labeled (i flow these on separate sheets)

- Combo shells need to have unique abuse stories to the interp. generally speaking, the more planks in a combo shell, the less persuasive the abuse story, and the more persuasive the counterinterp/ i meet.

- "converse of the interp" has never made much sense to me/seems like a cop out, if you say "converse of the interp" please clarify the specific stance that you're taking because otherwise it's difficult to hold you to the text of the CI

- overemphasize the text of the interp and names of standards so i don't miss anything

- you can make implicit weighing claims in the shell, but extend explicit weighing PLEASE

T

- RVIs make less sense on T than they do on other shells, so an uphill battle

- T and theory generally function on the same layer for me but I can be persuaded otherwise

- Good/unique TVAs are underutilized, so make them. best type of terminal defense on T IMO

- altho I read a ton of K affs my jr year, I fall in the middle of the K aff/TFW divide.

- if you're going to collapse on T, please actually collapse. don't reread the shell back at me for 2 minutes.

- see above for my takes on defaults

K

- I am more familiar with asian american, fem, and cap (dean, marx, berardi), but have a decent understanding of wilderson, wynter, tuck and yang, deleuze, anthro, mollow, edelman, i'm sure theres more im forgetting, but chances are I've heard of the author you're reading. I don't vote on arguments I couldn't explain back at the end of the round. if the 1ar/2nr doesn't start off with a coherent explanation of the theory of power, I can't promise you'll like my decision.

- buzzwords in excess are filler words. they're fine, but if you can't explain your theory of power without them, I'm a lot less convinced you actually know what the K says.

- some combination of topical and generic links is probably the best

- i find material examples of the alt/method more persuasive than buzzwordy mindsets. give instances of how your theory of power explains subjectivity/violence/etc in the real world.

- floating piks need to be at least hinted at in the 1n

- idc if the k aff is topical. if it isn't, i need a good reason why it's not/a reason why your advocacy is good.

- you should understand how your lit reads in the following broad categories: theory of the subject, theory of knowledge, theory of violence, ideal/nonideal theory, whether consequences matter, and be able to interact these ideas with your opponent

Phil

- the type of debate I grew up on. NC/AC debates are criminally underrated, call me old school

- I'm probably familiar with every common phil author on the circuit, but don't assume that makes me more amenable to voting on it. if anything i have a higher threshold for well explained phil

- i default epistemic confidence and truth testing (but again. hate defaulting. don't make me do it.)

- that being said, I think that winning framework is not solely sufficient to win you the round. You need to win some offense under that framework.

- i like smart arguments like hijacks, fallacies, metaethical args, permissibility/skep, etc.

- sometimes fw arguments devolve into "my fw is a prereq because life" and "my fw is a prereq because liberty" and those debates are really boring. please avoid circular and underwarranted debates and err on the side of implicating these arguments out further/doing weighing

Policy

- Rarely did LARP in LD, but I did do policy for like a year (in 8th/9th grade, and I was really bad, so take this with a grain of salt)

- All CPs are valid, but I think process/agent ones are probably more suss

- yes you need to win a util framework to get access to your impacts

- always make perms on CPs and please isolate net benefits

- ev>analytic

- please weigh strength of link/internal links

- TLDR I'm comfortable evaluating a LARP debate/I actually enjoy judging them, just please err on overexplaining more technical terms (like I didn't know what functional/textual competition was until halfway through my senior year)

Tricks

- well explained logical syllogisms (condo logic, trivialism, indexicals, etc) (emphasis on WELL EXPLAINED AND WARRANTED) > blippy hidden aprioris and irrelevant paradoxes

- i dont like sketchiness about tricks. if you have them, delineate them clearly, and be straightforward about it in CX/when asked.

- Most tricks require winning truth testing to win. Don't assume that because i default TT, that i'll auto vote for you on the resolved apriori--I'm not doing that level of work for you.

- warrants need to be coherently explained in the speech that the trick is read. If I don't understand an argument/its implication in the 1ac, then I view the argument (if extended) as new in the 1ar and require a strong development of its claim/warrant/impact

TLDR - CX

I have a basic understanding of policy, as I dabbled in it in high school. Err on the side of overexplanation of more technical terms, and don't assume I know the topic lit (bc I don't!)

Misc. thoughts (that probably won't directly affect how I evaluate a specific round, but just explains how I view debate as a whole)

- tech/truth distinction is arbitrary. I vote on the flow, but truer arguments have a lower threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is round) and less true arguments have a higher threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is flat)

- I think ROB/standard function on the same layer (and I also don't think theres a distinction between ROB and ROJ), and therefore, also think that the distinctions between K and phil NCs only differ in the alternative section and the type of philosophy that generally is associated with both

- I highly highly value adapting to less experienced debaters, and will boost your speaks generously if you do. This includes speaking clearly, reading positions and explaining them well, attempting to be educational, and being generally kind in the round. To clarify, I don't think that you have to completely change your strategy against a novice or lay debater, but just that if you were planning on reading 4 shells, read 2 and explain them well. It's infinitely more impressive to me to watch a debater be flex and still win the round than to make the round exclusionary for others.

- docbots are boring to me. I just don't like flowing monotonous spreading for 6 minutes of a 2n on Nebel, and it's not educational for anyone in the round to hear the same 2n every other round. lower speaks for docbots.

- I will not evaluate arguments that ask me to vote for/against someone because they are of a certain identity group or because of their out of round performances. I feel that oversteps the authority of a judge to make decisions ad hominem about students in the activity

- pet peeve when people group permissibility/presumption warrants together. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.

- i'm getting tired of ppl asking "what did you read" "what didn't you read" during cx/prep but ESPECIALLY after the speech before prep. like please just flow. it's kinda silly to just ask "what were your arguments on ___" for 2 min of prep cuz like just tell me you weren't flowing then!

- this list will keep expanding as I continue to muse on my debate takes