Hi! I'm Caleb, a senior at Durham Academy. I've been debating for like 3-4 years on the national circuit and I've had some decent enough success so I'd like to believe I'm pretty experienced.

Paradigm:

IF I DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR IT. PLEASE EXPLAIN, WARRANT, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY IMPLICATE EVERYTHING WELL

Copied from Alex Huang: (Alternatively, you can read Ben Hodges or really any other Durham debater's paradigm I think we all think about debate relatively the same way)

For novices.

I think DSDLs are a fantastic opportunity to learn and I want to help y'all do that to the best of my ability.

So ask questions! Probably not during the round, but before and after the round definitely.

And most of all, be nice! We're all just here to learn and have fun, so help me do that, help your opponents do that, and help yourself do that.

This is how you win my ballot:

Collapse- There is not enough time in summary and final focus to talk about every argument in-depth, so please choose one of your contentions to focus on (collapse on, or "go for). This should be the one you extend.

Extend- Make sure in the back half of the round (the summary and final focus speeches), you re-explain the argument you are "going for" and collapsing on. Tell me in detail what will happen when I negate/affirm, and why that's a reason to vote for you!

Warrant- Tell me why. Make sure you give reasoning for all of your arguments and responses! It will be very difficult for me to vote for you if all I have to work with is "Student loan forgiveness will cause a recession." So tell me why it will cause a recession, e.g. "Student loan forgiveness will cause a recession because ____ which means _____ which causes ______ because of ________.

Implicate/Interact- I know from experience that often times while debating, it is very clear to me how all the arguments relate to each other and respond to one another. However, that doesn't mean it is clear to the judge. So make sure you go the whole nine yards and be very explicit in explaining to me how your arguments fit into the round. This means telling me why your responses take out your opponents argument, why your opponents argument doesn't take out your argument, and why I should prefer your responses over your opponent's.

Signpost- Piggybacking off of the implicating explanation, your responses and speeches might be super organized in your head, but that doesn't mean it will be organized to me, the judge. Instead, please signpost, i.e., tell me what you are talking about before you talk about it. If you are talking about their argument, maybe say "on their argument," but then say "now on our argument," when switching to talking about yours. Also, number your responses, e.g. say "on their argument about _____, we have four responses. first, _____, second, _____ etc."

Weigh - Compare your arguments and tell me why yours is more important! To do this well your weighing needs to be warranted and comparative. It will be difficult for me to vote for you if you just say "our argument is more important on magnitude." Instead tell me something like, "our argument is more important because it results in deaths, something that cannot be recovered from, whereas their argument only concerns an economic downturn, which the economy can bounce back from."

Make a Basketball Reference for Boosted Speaks!

For debate: I consider myself a flow judge, I did PF debate in high school and went to NSDA and CFL nationals a couple times.

I do put emphasis on the flow because of what it represents - the ability to track arguments and build upon them in each case, as well as the ability to combat your opponents points. Note however, the purpose of the flow isn't to just tally up arguments at the end and vote on whoever has the most arguments, rather to track arguments made so they can be weighed. How arguments are weighed depends on how well you communicate their impact in round, as well as how well you explain causal links. Frameworks are important as well, as how an argument is viewed depends on the lens with which you decide to view it.

Any racist, transphobic, misogynistic, homophobic, etc. comments or arguments will be penalized. Please be respectful of each other and be kind, the goal of debate isn't to showcase how smart you are but rather how well you can communicate your ideas and convince others that your ideas are right. Discourse is a key aspect of this, and you cannot have fruitful discourse while disrespecting each other.

My email is acloud@rthighschool.org, please feel free to reach out to me after the round with comments or if you want to see my copy of the flow.

Hi all! I am the Head Coach of Speech and Debate at Pinecrest High School in North Carolina. I am a former extemper with pretty deep knowledge of the happenings in the world.

LD & PF

--I am fine with speed, but remember with speed comes the risk I won't get it on the flow. If you see me stop typing/pen is no longer writing/I am staring blankly at you, consider that your cue to slow down.

--Make sure to differentiate your sourcing. Authors' last names are great, but tell me where the source comes from first. John Doe from the Council on Foreign Relations in 2022 sounds better than Doe 22. After that, you can refer to the source as CFR or Doe and I'm good on what you are referring to.

--Please weigh. Please. You have to do this in order for me to be able to determine a winner.

--Respect. Respect your opponents, partner (if in PF), self, and the host school. Competitive debate is a great activity; but you must maintain some sense of decorum throughout your time in the round.

Congress

--When you go to an in-house recess to determine splits, or inquire as to why no one is speaking, you have done yourself and your fellow competitors a disservice by not being prepared. Please avoid this as much as possible.

--I'm fine with rehashing arguments to a point, but you need to add more evidence to support this rehashed point. Something niche and unique that can catch the opposing side off guard.

--Presiding Officers: thank you for volunteering to run the chamber. Please only defer to the parli when you are unsure of certain procedure.

Hi! I'm Fiona, a pf debater at Cary.

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

Tldr: run any argument you want

General

Hate speech, bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. will not be tolerated. Any violation of this rule will be auto 0L.

Tech > Truth

Signpost! PLEASE! It makes my life easier for flowing and easier for me to follow the round.

PLEASE PLEASE WEIGH.

Second rebuttal must frontline. Defense is NOT sticky.

If you're going to go fast, send a doc. I literally cannot flow things really fastly, I need a doc.

If you paraphrase, please provide cut cards.

Speaks depend on the tournament, but they normally start at 28.5. (Blast Lana before a round and I'll boost your speaks).

That being said, for every time you go "I will take x number of prep" I will be docking a speaker point. Just say "I'll be taking running prep" and tell me how much you use -- so much easier.

I don't flow cross, but it's binding.

I'll disclose if the tournament allows it.

Specific Arguments

Policy

Extend link chains and impacts. I can not weigh the round if I have no impacts and warranting for impacts. Also, have an internal link into your impact -- saying a pandemic will cause extinction with no warrant why will not make me happy.

Evidence clash is excessive in pf. Please just weigh or give warranting on which piece of evidence is better. I don't want to intervene and decide what piece of evidence is better, so do it for me or you might be unhappy with your result.

If there is no offense in the round, I presume neg.

I really prefer you line by line everything, if you have an overview tell me where to flow it.

Progressive Debate

I'm a better judge for K than theory.

Ks

I can evaluate both non-topical and topical Ks.

Even though I've read Ks throughout high school, I won't hack for Ks. I'm perfectly fine with voting off of T, extinction outweighs, or anything else that's won on the flow.

The current state of K-affs is far too polarized. There seems to be a common expectation of literal perfection within a K team's advocacy in and out of round. I don't think it should be a sacred argument and this treatment of Ks as sacred deters minority debaters from running identity Ks in the first place.

If you are reading a K, explain your theory of power well, and make implications of why it matters.

Theory

I default to competing interps, no RVIs, DTD.

RVIs need warrants. If they don't have warrants, they are going to lose.

I'm not a fan of TW theory, I think it's used as a cop-out to not talk about non-graphic social issues. That being said, I won't hack against it.

Disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad. Again, I won't hack for either disclosure or paraphrasing theory.

Tricks

I don't get tricks, so run them at your own risk.

I debated pf for a year and a half.

For LD: I know a little about LD but not much so if you want to win you need to show me exactly why I should vote for you. Make my job easy. Show me why you win your framework.

For PF: I am experienced in PF. Please weigh, early and often. Compare your arguments to the opponent's and show me why you will win. Extend your arguments but collapse on one contention. I don't want to be evaluating five different arguments after summary.

Number one rule is be nice. Debate can get pretty heated so I think it’s important we remember we’re all just here to have fun.

Before the debate please state your name, speaking position (1st or second) and pronouns (if you're comfortable disclosing them). Mine are (He/Him/His).

Speaker points are biased and influenced by attitudes that we often times don’t realize we have. That said I will deduct points if you interrupt your opponent during their speech, or otherwise disrespect them in any way. Any noise making timers will lose you points if they go off during an opponents speech, I am the final decider of when the speakers time has run out not your watch but please do try to respect the time limits.

Lastly, any racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, xenophobia, anti-semitism, or any other form of bigotry will not be tolerated and will result in immediate dropping.

Generative AI language models will result in dropping. The point of this activity is to think through your opponents arguments and conduct thorough research, not ask someone else to do the work for you.

warrant

i begged you

but

you didn’t

and you

lost

-rupi kaur

---

also, if we can get the round done in under 45 minutes, everyone gets 30 speaks

I would like the candidates to speak at a slow pace with clear thoughts rather than hurried speech - This will help me to understand the subject clearly. Look forward to meet you all.  Thanks

I'm Ryan, and I graduated in the Apex Friendship High class of 2023.

I debated PF in high school for two years, but it's been three years since I have competed, so I'm a bit rusty.

I will flow the round. I value logical link chains, the extension of evidence through the round, clear impacts, and most importantly, WEIGHING those impacts (as long as they have not been dropped and then revisited). It is not my job to evaluate which side outweighs the other. You should be the one explaining that to me.

Don't run theory. PF is not the place for that. I will be confused, and you will probably not win the round.

I don't mind if you speak quickly, but your goal should be to make a logical argument, NOT to cram as much information into four minutes as possible. However, if your opponents cannot understand you, then slow down.

This is an educational activity, and I want everyone to feel comfortable and safe in their environment so they can bring their best selves to the round. Be respectful to each other and me. Basic manners go a long way, and then I won't have to dock speaks and we can all go on our merry way.

我会评估任何事情，只是不要让这一轮变得烦人/困难 将我添加到链中： pranav_ravulapati@caryacademy.org 或有时这很慢，所以也添加 caryprdebate@gmail.com 以防万

This is my second year as a parent judge. A few things about my judging preferences:

- I value a clear logic flow and argument

- It’s important during a debate to allow the listeners to understand your argument and points, so it’s better to speak slowly and to be heard, rather than quickly (clarity over speed)

• I love a good clash. You’ll get credit for a clear, logical argument, but demonstrating the ability to modify your argument and rebut your opponents’ ACTUAL argument is very important (dynamic arguments are very effective)
• Be civil in your crossfire. You will lose speaker points with me for badgering your opponent.

Most important: have fun. The ability to debate is a crucial life skill!

Ashton Swinney, Senior Intelligence Analyst - Fort Bragg, NC

Background:

I am an Intelligence Analyst that works for the US Military. I have spent over 10 years in the role. My job has made me very familiar with public speaking, albeit within a military framework.

With that in mind, while I am adept at picking up jargon pretty fast, I am not familiar with the colloquialisms/slang of this organization quite yet. So I would ask that you keep that in mind.

I expect all arguments to remain professional and respectful. You may speak at what pace works best for you, as long as you are speaking clearly and concisely. I am used to listening to my audiobooks/podcasts/videos at 2-2.5x speed, so I don't expect speed to be an issue unless what you are saying is said poorly enunciated. Please do not test how much you can say in one breathe though.

I don't care if you sit, stand, or talk with your hands.

If the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision at the end of the round after I have submitted my ballot.

I’m Jack (he/him), a 4th year pfer at Durham Academy (class of '24)

General Stuff:

My email is 24vail@da.org for email chains or questions.

Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, misgender anyone, etc. It’s an L and minimum speaks for anyone who is discriminatory.

If we’re in round early feel free to talk/ask questions. Same with postrounding, I’ll always answer questions about my decision (time permitting) but the ballot won’t get changed.

Speed <250wpm is probably fine but if you plan to go that fast send a speech doc. I will not flow off a doc so I have to be able to understand you. The more I can clearly hear and process what you're saying the more likely I am to vote on it. I will clear you.

Time yourself and your opponents for prep and speeches, I usually do too but might forget.

Substance:

I'll vote on any topical argument, but that doesn’t mean you can’t warrant (the less true the argument, the lower my threshold for a response).

Extend the whole argument (with warranting) for me to vote on it in both backhalf speeches. This is non-negotiable. I don’t usually flow evidence names so explain what your evidence says in the extension.

You should collapse by summary, please don’t make all our lives difficult by going for all your case arguments and four turns, just pick a few things you’re winning and win them.

When I vote I look to weighing first and then whoever best links, so do good weighing and meta-weigh (tell me why your weighing is better than theirs). I will not vote for an argument with 0 risk just because you win weighing however.

I listen to cross but bring up important points in your next speech. Let your opponents speak and don’t lie.

Evidence:

I won't vote on misconstrued evidence that is either called out or that I read myself (note: misconstrued evidence is different from bad evidence).

If something violates NSDA evidence rules I’d rather you challenge it than read an IVI or shell about it.

Please be able to share evidence quickly, it's really annoying to sit around and wait for someone to find/send a single piece of evidence. Similarly, please only ask for evidence you need and don't call for excessive evidence to get extra prep or throw off your opponents. It makes it easier to just send docs before speeches but I don't require that.

If evidence is important to my decision I’ll call for it, otherwise I probably won’t unless you tell me to.

Theory/Ks:

I’m definitely not the best judge for these rounds, I have some experience with both but not a lot and am not particularly familiar with critical literature. I can flow these arguments but will make no guarantees about my ability to evaluate them correctly, so if you go for them make sure to explain everything really well and slow down. The more complex, the slower and more explained everything should be.

If you don't understand the argument/can't make me and your opponents understand it by final focus, I won't vote for it. If you're reading a K I expect you to understand your literature/arguments very well and you should be able to convey that understanding to myself and your opponents.

You should have really good norms if you read theory.

Interps should be read in the next speech after the violation.

For theory I have no strong preference for yes/no rvis or counterinterps/reasonability. I default text over spirit and that will be hard to change.

I don't have a strict rule about when to/not to read these arguments, but I don't think anyone gets anything out of a round where a newer team is just shelled with progressive arguments and will be receptive to arguments about that.

I won't vote for tricks or theory I think is frivolous.

Speaks:

My speaks will probably be higher than other judges. I reward good debating (strategy, partner cohesion, etc.) and don’t particularly care about presentation (sitting vs. standing, eye contact, fluency, etc).

I like humor and won’t tolerate rudeness towards your partner or your opponents.

Random Thoughts:

2nd rebuttal should at least frontline what you plan to collapse on and turns, anything not covered is conceded.

Defense isn't sticky, you have to extend everything you want in your final through summary.

There shouldn’t be anything new in final focus.

I will not evaluate any arguments made in round from AI.

I would rather start early.

If you use a beeping timer hold yourself to the same standard as your opponents and let it beep at the end of your speeches as well.

Experience:

6 years Policy Debate (Edina High School and Trinity University)

2 years Domestic Extemp (Edina High School)

Judging (Mostly Policy, LD and Public Forum) since 2011

Coaching (Public Forum) since 2021

Paradigm:

I evaluate arguments within an offense/defense paradigm. The reasons why your case is good should outweigh the reasons why it is bad or it should outweigh the reasons why the opposing team's case is good.

I do not have any arguments that I will disregard offhand. I try as much as possible to judge based on the arguments made by the debaters in the round. I really like impact calculus (or weighing), I get annoyed when teams don't make comparative claims between their arguments and their opponents arguments because it leads to me having to intervene in the round.

Shake hands with your opponents at the end of the round, debate is a small community!

1. What is your experience level? Have you been actively coaching or judging, and how long? How often have you judged rounds on this topic?

This is my first-year judging for the forensic team. I have experience judging some speech categories, but I have mostly judged for PFD. This is my fourth competition this year. I have experience in public speaking and have been trained on both the military side and civilian side in various types of public speaking.

2. Describe your preferences as they relate to debaters’ rate of delivery and use of jargon or technical language.

I recognize that every team is coming from a different demographic and are performing at different levels due to their coaches and their styles. It is a lot of information to fit into a short amount of time and I try to be mindful of that. I want each person to come in and speak at the rate they are comfortable, but please be mindful that I must be able to understand the words you are saying. I judge on the ability to effectively defend your position and I give grace to you when you fumble because I recognize that you are told which side you are debating shortly before you walk into the room. However, I do not enjoy when people give up and state words like “I do not know” or “probably” or “maybe.” You are supposed to be prepared to debate both sides and should have done research on the topic.

3. Describe your personal note-taking during the round. Do you write down key arguments? Keep a rigorous flow?

I’m not a big note taker. Do not take it personal, it is how my brain works. I do not like to be distracted with writing notes during any meeting or interaction I have because I want to be able to listen, observe, and take it all in. I’m a reflector. I write your name as soon as I get in the room and confirm who you are. I will write down single words here and there when there is something specific that I want to be prompted to mention about your performance.

4. Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Are there certain delivery styles that are more persuasive to you?

I value professionalism and follow through. I recognize everyone is different and everyone communicates differently and therefore, I do not have a preference on style.

5. What are the specific criteria you consider when assessing a debate?

I consider whether the team committed to their side and were able to properly defend it throughout or did they get flustered and change their stance continuously when the other team pushed back. I evaluate their professionalism based on how they interacted with their opponents and how respectful they were of each other during crossfire.

I am a parent judge and expect the following:

1. Civil and professional discourse with observation of tournament rules and behavior guidelines.

2. Present a clear framework and support with evidence and data.

3. Speak clearly, at a reasonable pace (no speed talking), and do not spread.

4. Cross-examine your opponent meeting their points.

Best wishes in your debating.

I have judged PF debates since 2020. I use computer to take notes of key points delivered. I value the logic in arguments more than style. Balanced defense and offense win debate. I expect each team to show respect to the opponent. Argue with facts and logic instead of rhetoric.

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.