Tabroom.com

52nd Annual Tournament of Champions

2024 — Lexington, KY/US

Public Forum Gold Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Nine Abad Seven Lakes High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 5, 2024 at 11:07 AM CDT

Pronouns: they/he | Email: ixdebate [at] gmail [dot] com

Seven Lakes '21, University of Houston '26

Howdy! My name is Nine (pronounced like the number). Assistant coach for Seven Lakes & Isidore Newman. President of the University of Houston policy debate team, 2x NDT qualifier.

If you're interested in debating at UH, shoot me a message!

PF note:

1) please add sevenlakespf [at] googlegroups [dot] com to the chain.

2) please make the subject of the chain: "[Tournament] 24 PF Round [#]---[Aff team code] (AFF) vs [Neg team code] (NEG)" or something similar

example: "NSDA Nats 24 PF Round 1---Seven Lakes AR (AFF) vs Seven Lakes MJ (NEG)"

3) pre-flowing is pre-round prep. if you're pre-flowing during round start time, you should be taking prep for that.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

- please do not refer to me as ma'am, miss, etc. my pronouns are they/he. if you have questions about this, please ask!

- i do not tolerate racism, xenophobia, homophobia, sexism, ableism, transphobia, etc. please respect people's names, pronouns, and identities. just be respectful, it's really not that hard.

- debate should be a welcoming and accessible place. if you have concerns, please let me know and i will work with you to try to resolve them.

- feel free to email me with questions! i love talking about speech/debate/interp and am more than happy to answer questions or have conversations about it. even if you have questions about college, debating in college, etc., hit me up!

- have a good debate! have a good performance! have a good attitude! and most importantly, have fun!!!

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Debate (Policy, LD, PF):

if you’re WSD, you don’t have to read this section and can scroll below for the WSD section.

five minutes before round? here’s the tl;dr:

- put me on the email chain. set up the email chain even if i'm not in the room yet. email chain >>> speech drop unless there’s an issue with school emails or wifi.

- debate is for debaters! you do you and i will adapt accordingly! i'll vote on almost any arg. specificity, comparison, and contextualizing is important. offense over defense.

- yes, spreading is okay with me. yes, i’m okay to read ks in front of. no, i don’t care how you look or if you stand or sit, etc. just feel comfortable while you’re debating!

- probably not going to vote on condo bad.

- "nine" > "judge”

- i will always try to disclose my decision and provide feedback if the tournament allows it. i will not disclose specific speaker points.

- i flow on paper, so give me pen time and slow down for analytics. you can ask to take pictures of my flows after the round! yes, you can email me with questions later too.

doing prefs? here’s what i’m good for and what args i’m most familiar with. (you should still read the rest of the paradigm though):

- i'm good for both policy and k arguments. i coach and go for both policy and K arguments, and will be good for a policy v policy, K v policy, and K v K throwdowns.

- i’m less good for high theory, phil, and tricks/blippy theory. but, if they are read in front of me, i will evaluate them as best as i can, and i am likely looking for clarity/explanation of the argument and an impact to vote on. burden of proof comes before the burden of rejoinder. if i can’t explain your theory/shell/k/argument back to you, i won’t vote on it.

want more explanation? here’s the longer version (in no particular order):

i can not express this enough: debate is for debaters. i will adapt to your debating style accordingly. you do you! i will evaluate based on what’s on my flow. most importantly, have fun :-) !

- tech >>> truth. exceptions are, of course, if you are being explicitly racist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc. everything else is fair game.

- stealing prep is bad. i will dock speaker points if i catch you stealing prep and tell you to stop multiple times. taking the time to take out analytics/to make a send doc is using prep. time your opponents' prep/speeches and hold them accountable.

- i flow on paper and flow each advantage and off case position on separate sheets of paper. give me pen time to flip pages between sheets. slow down on analytics. when you give an order, give me time to flip between my sheets.

- i flow based on what i hear. i will be listening to YOU, not a doc. that means that you should be very clear when spreading.

email chains/evidence:

- email chains >>> speech drop. add me to the email chain. please make an email chain before i’m in the room---i want to start on time. speech drop is fine if there are school email issues or if there are wifi issues, otherwise, please use an email chain.

- card docs are appreciated

- clipping cards: i will give a warning if i catch someone clipping cards. depending on how bad it is, i will either stop the round and/or dock speaker points

- ev ethics: missing paragraphs in between highlighted parts, misquoted/misattributed authors, cards starting in the middle of paragraphs, incorrect cites, etc. are reasons for teams to lose the round. if an ev ethics challenge is called, i will stop the round and evaluate the evidence unless tournament rules say otherwise (ex: UIL tournaments). i generally err on the side that i should strike the card not drop the team unless the team has already been notified of the ev violation.

- for PF: paraphrasing is bad. actually formatted cards are good.

speed:

- yes you can spread at top speed but slow down for tags, authors, and analytics.

- clarity > speed. i will yell "clear" if i can't hear you or if you are unintelligible. if i yell it enough, i will stop flowing.

- i have minor hearing damage in both ears and it flares up once in a while. i will let you know beforehand if i'm having a bad hearing day and if you need to be extra clear. i will say “loud” if you need to be louder.

cross-examination:

- i will take notes on CX on a separate sheet of paper sometimes. but, if you want the answers from CX to be applied to your speech, you need to say it in a speech!

- CX is so under-utilized. debaters need to be making more arguments during CX and aligning it with your speeches. please use CX to make arguments!

- i will boost speaker points for actually good CXs. (i.e., not spending the entire time on clarification questions, not doing flow check questions with the exception of status/reasons to reject housekeeping questions)

framework:

- you should have an offensive reason to prefer your model of debate or the aff.

- specificity is best, reading generic framework blocks is unpersuasive to me. you need to apply it to the aff.

- TVAs are nice to have but not necessary

- the best fw arguments implicate the aff's theory of power and/or describe why fw turns case.

- please give me judge instruction, framing points, etc.

- i really like implications to skills and iteration/testing. i like fairness if you’ve implicated it to case/the method.

case:

- yes case turns, yes impact turns, yes case debate. there isn't enough case debate in most instances.

- i am comfortable on voting on presumption if there is enough defense and/or i could not tell you what the aff does by the end of the round.

- for PF: defense is not sticky.

topicality:

- more teams should read it!

- T debate is best when the violation args are specific to the aff. but, don't miss the forest for the trees–you should still do comparison on the model/world of debate.

- i default to competing interps, can be changed in round

- will vote on reasonability if a reasonability arg is made, but this can be changed in-round.

- yes, read the K if you want to.

- don't expect me to fill in gaps. don't rely on buzzwords and expect me to know them.

- if you're going for the alt, tell me what it looks like and how it applies to the aff. you can kick the alt if you don't think it's strategic, but you need to flag it and tell me how you win on everything else.

- link turns case args that are specific and contextualized to the aff are >>>>>>!!! please make more of these arguments!!!

- Ks with links to the consequences of the plan are the most intuitive links to me. but don't let that deter you from going for links to reps, framework, or similar non-consequence based arguments

DA:

- don't give me a contextless card dump, the more specific with how the DA interacts with the aff the better. i don't have opinions on specific DAs, read whatever you like.

- i will look for a clear link first then evaluate the impacts. link/DA turns case is always nice

CP:

- i don't have strong opinions about any type of CP. go ahead and read any flavor of CP you like, even if they’re “cheaty”.

- uncarded and/or multiplank advantage CPs are fine but generally require more explanation on how they solve. they should be relatively intuitive and/or based on aff warrants/cards. read as many planks as you want (read: condo thoughts in the theory section).

- i default to judge kick. but, this can be reversed in-round as long as there’s ink on my flow for it.

theory:

- condo is good. my threshold for answering condo bad is very low. i will vote on condo bad if it gets dropped.

- RVIs are silly to me, especially when they're just thrown out without a warrant.

- don't have strong thoughts on other theory issues.

- don't blitz thorugh pre-written blocks. again, i flow on paper. give me pen time to write down the analytics.

K affs:

- i like the education/real-world implications of K affs. i really like well thought out, thematically tight, content-packed, and well-structured K affs, especially if there are performance aspects to it.

- i like negs strats v. K affs that engage with K aff's theory of power (which can also include framework!), and am comfortable voting on presumption/framework

speaker points:

- (updated to match reigner's speaker point scale): i start at around 28.8 and go up or down from there. i try to adjust a bit based on the tournament. i evaluate speaker points based on strategic choices and articulations.

- debate can get heated and i don't mind mild roasts or whatever, but if you are just being flat out insulting and making people feel uncomfortable, i will lower your speaks (and stop the round in extreme instances)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

World Schools:

five minutes before round? here’s the tl;dr:

– yes, i know the format. i primarily did WSD in high school and used to primarily coach WSD.

– i flow and will vote based on what’s on my flow. i would rather vote on content, arguments, and warrants over speaking pretty.

– i value organized speeches!!! messy speeches = sad nine = sad ballot. ways to make sure your speech is organized: 1) enumerate your responses, 2) signpost your arguments, and 3) condense into clash.

– i would much rather vote on offensive over defensive arguments. worlds debaters are really really good at making defensive args, but not necessarily offensive ones. please have offense. i want to vote on your argument's impact!!!

want more explanation? here’s the longer version:

– format: follow it. that means no spreading, no “off the clock roadmaps” (i start the clock as soon as you say "as an off the clock roadmap"), taking 1-2 pois, etc. that also means no using heavy debate jargon (topicality, condo, etc.). you’re probably using those words in the wrong context anyway. “fiat” is definitely a word/arg that exists in wsd, but make sure you’re using it correctly.

– explain and characterize! the best debaters are the ones who can best explain their clash, how and why actors will act a certain way, etc.

– strategy and style are important! i value strategic debaters (ex: speech consistency, taking timed pois, not being contradictory, etc.) and if you have style on top of that, you will get some great speaker points at the end of the round. but don’t sacrifice style for content. i'll always prefer analysis > speaking pretty. the best strategic choices debaters can make in wsd is being explicit and giving me some judge direction, telling me what arguments i should prioritize in the round, and *actually* attacking the other team on their highest ground. the best replies are embedded with good judge instruction.

– issues about the debate can be resolved in-round. ex: if there is a debate about whether the team gets fiat or not, make the arguments in round and don't rely on me to default to whatever opinion i have of fiat. or, if you think the team isn't debating the heart of the motion, make those arguments in round. i expect a defense of what exactly the heart of the motion is from both sides in that instance. i'll evaluate those arguments based on what's on my flow.

– replies: the replies should be holding my hand and telling me what happened in the debate. tell me what i should be writing down in my ballot. tell me what you're winning and what they're losing. tell me how you've closed off the other team's path to ballot. please please please give me some judge instruction here.

– ideological lean: just because i do policy debate does not mean i lean towards policy style arguments. i truly and genuinely don't care what kind of arguments you run or go for as long as you give me a reason to vote for it. seriously, you do you. i'll vote on any kind of argument.

– principle debates: if it becomes a practical v. principle debate, i'm expecting a lot of weighing and why the principle outweighs practical or vice versa. i'm also in the camp that principle almost always needs some kind of impact (although it doesn't necessarily need to be utilitarian). for instance, if you're running a principle of democracy, your impact should be... democracy (surprise!). if you're running something about marginalized groups being harmed in some way, the impact could be structural violence or psychic violence to those people, which is on-face, bad and is probably overlooked. i love creative principles and creative impacts here.

– model debates: both models and countermodels need to be characterized. teams should tell me how they're mechanized, what the incentives are for key actors, and how the model might interact with core stakeholders. prop should fully articulate how they get offense from the model (this is where i usually see prop fail). opp's countermodel should articulate how it's mutually exclusive from the prop model and why it is preferable, i.e. net benefits or what the opp countermodel does better/how it avoids prop's model's harms (and this is where the opp team usually fails). i think model/countermodel debates are appropriate for a few policy leaning motions.

if the debate becomes when it is or isn't appropriate to have a model, teams need to establish 1) what in the wording of the motion grants you a model (usually the action verb and applying it to the context of the rest of the motion) and 2) why the model is goldilocks for grounds to debate (why it's not too specific/narrow of a model and why it's not too broad). regardless of what my thoughts are for what's the most strategic way to interpret the motion, i will defer to the arguments made in-round on this question.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

speech/interp:

a speech/interp paradigm feels useless sometimes just because y'all have already memorized/blocked out your pieces and there's little my paradigm will inform you about how to better adapt to me as your judge. but i guess my brief thoughts are here in the off-chance someone reads this and gets something out of it:

you do you, just follow the format and perform the best you can!

for extemp, looking for format things (i.e. having a roadmap, using on-tops, following the speaker's triangle, etc.). i prefer content over speaking pretty most of the time, but since it's a speech event, i still take presentation seriously. i don't really care if you do a three or two point speech, but the content should still be in-depth and make sense.

for oo/info, most of my ballots come down to the implications/why it matters portion. humor (even attempts at humor) is always a plus.

for interp, i'm mainly looking for clarity of plot (also, if there is a plot to begin with), embodiment and distinctions between characters, and clear blocking/binder "mojo".

Jared Adam Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 1, 2024 at 11:26 AM EDT

Chattahoochee HS '21

University Of Kentucky '25

Add me to the chain: jaredaadam@gmail.com

Debate is a communication activity, I will flow what I hear, not what is in the doc.

Send card docs. I will vote for the team that does the better debating, and quality evidence properly leveraged and explained will be given greater weight. Though it's not a supplement to actually warranting out arguments, it's a crucial element in persuasion.

Theory:

I prefer to judge substantive debates over trivial theory arguments. Anything that isn't conditionality is unlikely to convince me to reject the team. I wouldn't say that I have a side bias for conditionality, I'll decide these debates technically, like any other, but begrudgingly so.

Counterplans:

Judge kick is my default unless told otherwise.

They should have a solvency advocate. Not a fan of the cardless 20 plank ADV CP and typically justifies new 1AR answers when the block finally explains why the planks solve, or read evidence.

The NEG should clearly articulate why the cp solves each of the aff's internal links, and the AFF needs to not just win a solvency deficit, but an impacted implication of why the solvency deficit matters.

Everyone has their own reasons why they value the activity, the kritik for me is not one of them. If this is your style of debate, strike me. That being said, if you have me in the back of these debates, here's a couple of my thoughts that might help:

It will be tough to convince me that the AFF shouldn't be able to weigh the case if framework is evenly debated. That means you should read links to the plan, engage the case, and win the impact to the links outweigh the AFF. That shouldn't be an impossible standard, unless your averse to clash. I understand you've read up on an academic theory (congrats on being a theorist, not a debater), but you can't rehash what you learned in book club, throw away any attempt to answer the case and expect to win in front of me.

I would prefer you read & defend a topical plan. Impact turning framework is more persuasive to me than extending a counter interpretation. If you're going to be untopical, let's stop pretending you aren't.

Case:

Debating the case seems to be such an afterthought nowadays. Poorly constructed 1AC's that spam impact scenarios with weak internal links can be beaten by smart analytics. It's egregious to think that affs can recycle impacts from backfiles, throw in one solvency advocate and call it a day. NEG teams should exploit this by making smart analytical arguments, internal link defense, and ADV CP's which would be preferable to just reading impact defense.

Random:

Prefer you read the rehighlight instead of inserting evidence (unless established in cross ex)

Will not vote for anything that happened outside of the round.

Vagueness is cowardice

Spending the first minute of cross ex questioning what was and wasn't read.

Spending all of cross ex asking useless questions that serve zero strategic purpose.

Not a fan of the proliferation of wipeout, death cult, silly framework k's, death good, generic process, etc. I understand debate is a technical game, and the end goal is to win, but when rounds are dominated by these kinds of arguments, it undermines the value of the game.

Debate, for me, is valuable since it allows students to showcase their understanding of complex topics and engage in new research that is innovative and exciting. It is a privilege to explore expert level research for a year as a student, but that value disappears when debates are reduced to process CPs and recycled impact turns.

It's especially hypocritical that these same debaters who rely on shallow generics and maximalist technical debating vilify K teams for disavowing the resolution. Both sides exploit the competitive nature of the game to strategically avoid clash and topic specific research to win.

My opinion on this has become increasingly hardened the more that I coach. That said, I fully recognize that debate, at its core, is a game, and the primary focus is to win. So I will stick to evaluating debates through a strict technical lens as I'm not sure there's an alternative, given how the game is structured. I will, however, use speaker points to reward debaters who actually enjoy the act of debating, and penalize those who make these debates boring and anti-educational to judge.

Corey Anderson Revere HS 4 rounds

isaac appel Iowa City West 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue July 2, 2024 at 1:12 PM EDT

Short:

Ex-policy ex-pf.

If you are spreading, take it down a couple notches speedwise if you want me to flow the debate halfway competently.

Win my flow, win the round.

No I would not like to be on the email chain.

No I will not call for the evidence.

Yes I will evaluate "prog"

Long:

I have experience in Policy and PF.

arguments are not arguments without warrants.

if all 4 debaters in a round express a reasonable preference they would like me to adopt prior to judging the debate, let me know and I will adopt it; judge adaptation can go both ways.

The round is judged based on the flow not my paradigm: You can treat this paradigm like a needlessly long, rambling, and (at this point) self-addmittedly pointless theory shell, if you don't like a preference make reasons in round as to why I should adopt a different preference. As will become a theme in this paradigm, I think just about every controversial practice in this community can be resolved on the flow; and your round will be judged according to my flow, not my paradigm.

I am very expressive, it is really obvious when i'm vibing with an argument or when i'm frustrated with an argument. If you're sensitive about getting mild, general, mid-round feedback about your arguments in the form of facial expressions or nods, you should probably strike me.

I don't really understand why debaters demand analytics in the speech doc. The speech doc is for evidence, you are still supposed to flow your opponents speech.

If you're losing the debate round, my speaker points and feedback will be much kinder if you don't do the typical thing debaters do where they just get progressively more rude and pretentious the more apparent the loss becomes.

I presume neg (if there's no offense i vote neg), but presumption can flip (if there's no offense I vote aff) if the aff wins that I should presume aff.

flowing:

Debate is a communicative activity. I often have a very hard time voting on arguments based on technical concessions because debaters are often far too blippy and flippant when communicating conceded arguments. Even with conceded arguments, you're going to have to articulate warrants and properly implicate them in order for me to feel comfortable hinging my ballot on them.

Take it down a couple notches speedwise, I've started to have difficulty keeping up in tech rounds. Remember to pause, differentiate pace between tags/card-text, and slow down on analytics. Honestly, i've never really been that great of a flower either; hence the reason why you should emphasize communication with me as your judge.

In terms of rate of delivery (spreading) and clarity, I will yell "clear" once if I do not understand you.If you do not become clear after that, I will give up attempting to flow your speech until I can understand you again. I am a very loud typer, especially when I am trying to type fast, so it should be clear when I am not flowing.

progressive argumentation:

These debates are where I feel most at home. I enjoy debates where debaters attempt to innovate with creative and nuanced arguments that push the envelope of what kinds of discourse we can introduce in this space. I equally enjoy debates where debaters are able to come up with creative and nuanced arguments about why pushing that particular envelope can be harmful.

If your framework arguments are really that compelling, you should be able to win a debate round with them without judge intervention. Hash it out on the flow. If you think a rule is good and is something we should stick to, you should be prepared to defend it. You should also be prepared to defend both the representations you make and ideologies that underly your arguments. Although I am sympathetic to the notion that resource constraints might make it difficult for some teams to keep up in these debates, I still think the proper place to adjudicate these debates is on the flow, and that the resource constraints some programs face can be a powerful reason why these sorts of debate should be disfavored.

evidence:

put simply: i don't care, but if you think it's an issue I will consider evidentiary issues if and only ifyou are be able to explain why and how it should influence my ballot on the flow.

I judge based on what I hear. This means: I won't call for evidence, I don't care if your evidence is in "card" form, I don't want to be on the email chain, and generally care more about what your argument is than what your evidence says.

I am still willing to begrudgingly vote on a well-explained argument as to why I should care about evidence ethics/standards/etc and will adjudicate an evidence challenge according to tournament procedure, in case that was not clear.

Jordana Bales The Bronx High School Of Science 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 23, 2024 at 10:51 AM EDT

Tell me why I should vote for you. Make sense. Explain your terms. Think of me as a relatively smart person who isn't debate-y. I'll vote for what makes sense. If I don't understand it, I can't vote for you.

As a judge, I am receptive to almost all arguments, but I am personally triggered by arguments centered on the current conflict between Israel and Palestine. Please refrain from running arguments around this topic in front of me.

The roll of the ballot is always to vote for the better debater - The one that I understand and that makes sense.

Make every argument clear and tell me why it isimportant! Why should I vote for you?

No spreading. I do not have a problem with it on principle. I just will not be able to follow your argument. Please be clear in your articulation. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. This goes for both policy and critical oriented debaters.

If your opponent misrepresents their evidence it is YOUR JOB to bring that to my attention. I rarely will call for a card.

Argument-Specific(I prefer traditional arguments)

Critical affs- very unfamiliar. Run them if you have NOTHING else, but be sure you explain yourself VERY clearly.

Neg arguments:
Disad- Explain the story/scenario of how the aff causes a specific impact and why that impact is the most important. I prefer you use traditional impact calculus in your framing.
Counterplan- Provide a competitive counterplan and explain the NET BENEFITS of why the counterplan is better than the aff
Topicality- Prove the aff is untopical and tell me why it’s important
Kritik- Unfamiliar- explain every argument clearly. I strongly advise you not to run one. If you chose to run a K, narrow the argument down to the impacts of the K.

SPECIFIC NOTE FOR POLICY DEBATE

Although I have been around policy debate for over two decades, I am still relatively inexperienced as a judge. This is a lay round. DO NOT SPREAD. Explain to me what your case is. Do not use debate jargon until you have explained it. I can only vote on what I can understand. Be logical and clear and I will vote for you. Be debate-y and fast and I may not be able to. If both teams do not follow these guidelines and I am unable to make an accurate assessment of the debate, I will make my best decision based on my limited understanding of the round.

Avery Bannister Hire 1 rounds

Cayla Anastasia Barreiro Hire 1 rounds

Varnica Basavaraj Millburn High School 2 rounds

Dylan Beach Winston Churchill High School 2 rounds

Robert Biemesderfer BASIS Independent McLean 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 17, 2024 at 5:19 PM EDT

Paradigm update for TOC 2024:

Very short version: Traditional-leaning debate coach

Short version: I am a debate coach, with 10+ years experience judging PF – mostly in my local area (DC), less on the national circuit. I try to keep a good flow, though some of the speed on the national circuit gets excessive. My background is in economics. Not a fan of K’s.

Doing prefs? I would be a bad person to pref if you are running K’s, know yourself to be faster than average NatCirc speed, or generally tend to the more “progressive” debate end of the spectrum. I am a good person to pref if you have a more “traditional” style, stick to the resolution, and have clear impacts.

Speed: I’ll be honest, I don’t like speed. PF was designed to be accessible to a lay audience. While I am fine with debate occurring at a faster than conversational pace, and can handle a moderate amount of speed, debaters on the National Circuit often far exceed this. Keep in mind that the fastest speed at which you can talk and I can reliably understand you is still probably higher than the optimal speed for me to get everything onto to the flow - if you want judges to vote off the flow, you need to speak at a speed optimized for someone writing, not just listening.

Email chain, Speech docs, and Evidence: I believe that PF Debate is a spoken activity, and that debaters should not rely on speech docs to compensate for speed or lack of clarity in their presentation. You can send me your speech doc if you want, but I will not flow off it. If you want me to flow something, make sure it comes across clearly in your verbal presentation. If a piece of evidence is in dispute, I will ask for it after the round – you can also tell me to call for a card.

K’s/Theory: I am not a good judge to run k’s in front of. I will do my best to follow along and keep an open mind, but I fundamentally expect to see a debate about the resolution, and am very sympathetic to topicality and preparedness arguments against straying too far from that.

Other matters: I really, really appreciate clear signposting, especially with numbers and letters, not just tags. This applies not only to the constructive, but (especially) in your rebuttals as well - make it as clear as possible where to flow your arguments, so I can spend less time searching for where something fits in, and more time writing/listening. I am, in many ways, a utilitarian at heart, and appreciate clearly quantified impacts, though I’m happy to vote on whatever framework was carried through the round. I’m not a fan of all the extremely-implausible link-chains that makes every debate end in human extinction, but I recognize the incentive gradients that get us there, and acknowledge structural aspects of PF (especially time) can make it difficult to fight. Crossfire is important, and I listen to cross (and I can't believe I have to say that), but don't flow it - so get key concessions from cross into a subsequent speech if you need it on the flow. I love off-time road maps. I am happy to provide feedback and disclose as long as the tournament permits it.

Background: I am a debate coach at BASIS Independent McLean with a background in PF, LD, and Extemp. I competed in LD and Extemp in high school (Downers Grove South, IL), a tiny bit of Parliamentary (APDA) in college (Georgetown University, DC), and have coached middle and high school PF, speech, and parli at BASIS DC (Washington, DC, 2012-2016) and BASIS Independent McLean (McLean, VA, 2016-present). I have a degree in economics and am an economics teacher by day. For the past several years, I have spent most tournaments in the tabroom rather than judging per se, but as a PF coach, you can usually expect that I will have a reasonable degree of background knowledge on the topic.

Hana Bisevac Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 9, 2024 at 11:51 AM CDT

Add hbisevac0@gmail.com

Niles North 23, Kentucky 27

General

Technical execution and preventing judge intervention should be at the forefront of whatever approach you take. This means that concessions (with warrants) matter and there should be lots of judge instruction.

Topic research is good, backfile slop is not. Research is my favorite part of the activity and I will always appreciate and reward a well-researched and thoughtful strategy, whatever that be. (but, I am also not qualified to mediate interpersonal problems between debaters!)

Organization is extremely important. you should number arguments, sign post, and slow down at times. I flow straight down on an excel doc and may have the doc open out of curiosity about cards but I am not following along.

"Intervention is forced when competing claims cannot be resolved by reading my flow. The litmus test I normally use is whether I can explain an argument based solely on the words on my flow without looking at any evidence or adding explanation based on my own assumptions. I do my best to avoid content intervention by making sure that I can explain arguments I'm voting on after the debate is over without reading cards. If arguments are equally well-explained but nevertheless irreconcilable, only then will I begin to read evidence." -David Griffith

Thoughts

Topicality: Predictability matters a lot more to me than other things. Have cards that define the word, not just use it. Reasonability will forever seem super arbitrary to me but can sometimes be fine against suspect interpretations. Limits for the sake of limits is not persuasive and internal link debating is very important.

Counterplans: Solvency deficits need explainable impacts. competition debates are good. NEG flex and precision are usually very persuasive. Most AFF theory violations seem pretty silly to me and standalone theory ever being the A-strategy doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.

Kritiks: Teams should get to weigh the AFF but excluding Ks doesn’t make sense. Vagueness on the link explanation will favor the AFF. Backfile Ks with no relation to the topic are icky and the links will always sound unpersuasive. The less you disprove the 1AC, the less compelling you are.

Planless AFFs: The more you struggle to explain the advocacy (in a non-vague way), the more favorable I am toward the NEG. I'm more persuaded by arguments about skills and methods that result from the 1AC being good as opposed to debate/institutions being bad.

Everything above applies. I do not like tricks, I do not like phil, and I do not like RVIs. (and whatever else elizabeth elliott thinks)

Random

-Please use email chains, not speech drop. Have proper subject lines with the tournament, round, and teams.

-Read re-highlightings.

-Avoid deadtime as much as possible.

-Don't be a jerk.

-Ask about anything. It often skips my mind to write down random thoughts I have about the debate as it is going on so I forget to mention it in the RFD but it will come back to me if you ask about it.

If you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about Kentucky, feel free to reach out!

Shabbir Bohri The Quarry Lane School 4 rounds

Jacob Bosley NSU University School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 26, 2024 at 3:43 AM EDT

Debate Coach at NSU University School

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

1---Big Picture

"Bosley" preferred, "Jacob" is fine, "Mr. Bosley" if you must for comfort.

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. My CX research is generally K-oriented and my PF research generally topic-oriented, but I'd like to believe I can grasp a wide range of debates.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly.

Flowing---I flow on a computer without much shorthand. I will have the document open, but use it for either reading evidence I am not familiar with or checking when I thought I caught an argument/tag and am confirming. If you are incomprehensible in the first place, I will not use the doc to fill-in.

Evidence---I read it during debates. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Intellectual Property" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer. Despite judging more than last year, I still don't have strong views on the most common issues, e.g. "courts only," "scope vs enforcement," "subsets," etc. Caselists and examples of specific ground lost/gained is always helpful.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. The two recent times I was asked to vote on conditionality bad/dispositionality-only good, I voted neg. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

Donald Broussard Davidson Academy Online 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 9:54 AM CDT

Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

Christopher Bryant Cranbrook 7 rounds

Bilal Butt Charlotte Latin School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2024 at 5:16 AM EDT

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

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

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

----Public Forum-----

- Flow judge, can follow the fastest PF debater, but don't use speed. It ruins any persuasive appeal, and the round boils down to strategic errors instead of any real substantive analysis. I will dock speaker points.

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

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

----Lincoln Douglas----

1. Judge and Coach mostly Traditional styles.

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

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

4. The rest is largely similar to PF judging:

5 Things to Remember…

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

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

2. Framework

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

3. Extensions

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

4. Evidence

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

5. Narrative

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

SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS

29-30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dongni Chen Saratoga HS 3 rounds

Maddie Cook Lakeville South High School 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 4:16 AM CDT

pronouns: she/her/hers

email: madelyncook23@gmail.com & lakevilledocs@googlegroups.com (please add both to the email chain) -- if both teams are there before I am, feel free to flip and start the email chain without me so we can get started when I get there

PLEASE title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order

Experience:

PF Coach for Lakeville North & Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2019-Present
Speech Coach for Lakeville South in Minnesota, 2022-Present
Instructor for Potomac Debate Academy, 2021-Present
University of Minnesota NPDA, 2019-2022
Lakeville South High School (PF with a bit of speech and Congress), 2015-2019

I will judge the debate you want to have. Go at whatever speed you prefer - I enjoy fast AND slow rounds as long as the warranting is good. A conceded blip barely means anything to me. I want to see a well executed collapse strategy with good cohesion between summary and final focus. Probably not the best judge for theory or kritiks, but I've listened to and enjoyed both when done well. If you plan to do either, please read the more detailed sections below. I'll give an RFD after the round.

General:

I am generally happy to judge the debate you want to have.
The only time you need a content warning is when the content in your case is objectively triggering and graphic. I think the way PF is moving toward requiring opt-out forms for things like “mentions of the war on drugs” or "feminism" is super unnecessary and trivializes the other issues that actually do require content warnings while silencing voices that are trying to discuss important issues.
I'll drop you with lowest speaks allowed by the tournament for racism, sexism, transphobia, etc.
I can probably keep up with whatever speed you plan to go. For online rounds, slow down more than you would in person. Please do not sacrifice clarity or warranting for speed. Sending a doc is not an excuse to go fast beyond comprehension - I do not look at speech docs until after the round and only do so if absolutely necessary to check evidence.
I wish more teams would full send evidence violations - way too many teams let opponents get away with egregious rules violations.
Silliness and cowardice are voting issues.

Evidence Issues:

Evidence ethics in PF are atrocious. Cut cards are the only way to present evidence.
Evidence exchanges take way too long. Send full speech docs in the email chain before the speech begins. I want everyone sending everything in this email chain so that everyone can check the quality of evidence, and so that you don’t waste time requesting individual cards.
Evidence should be sent in the form of a Word Doc/PDF/uneditable document with all the evidence you read in the debate.
The only evidence that counts in the round is evidence you cite in your speech using the author’s last name and date. You cannot read an analytic in a speech then provide evidence for it later.
Evidence comparison is super underutilized - I'd love to hear more of it.
My threshold for voting on arguments that rely on paraphrased/power-tagged evidence is very high. I will always prefer to vote for teams with well cut, quality evidence.
I don't know what this "sending rhetoric without the cards" nonsense is - the only reason you need to exchange evidence is to check the evidence. Your "rhetoric" should be exactly what's in the evidence anyway, but if it's not, I have no idea what the point is of sending the paraphrased "rhetoric" without the cards. Just send full docs with cut cards.
You have to take prep time to "compile the doc" lol you don't just get to take a bunch of extra prep time to put together the rebuttal doc you're going to send.

Specific Preferences:

I think this should go without saying in 2024, but frontline in second rebuttal. Dropped arguments in second rebuttal are conceded in the round. You should cover everything on the argument(s) you plan on going for, including defense.
Collapse in summary. It is not a strategy to go for tons of blippy arguments hoping something will stick just to blow up one or two of those things in final focus. The purpose of the summary is to pick out the most important issues, and you must collapse to do that well.
Weigh as soon as possible. Comparative weighing is essential for preventing judge intervention, and meta-weighing is cool too. I want to vote for teams that write my ballot for me in final focus, so try to do that the best you can.
Speech organization is key. I literally want you to say what argument I should vote on and why.
The way I give speaker points fluctuates depending on the division and the difficulty of the tournament, but I average about a 28 and rarely go below a 27 or above a 29. If you get a 30, it means you debated probably the best I saw that tournament if not for the past couple tournaments. I give speaker points based on strategic decisions rather than presentation.
I'm not going to vote on an argument that doesn't have an internal link just because the impact is scary - I'm very much not a fan of war scenarios read by teams that are unable to defend a specific scenario/actor/conflict spiral. I do really enjoy war scenarios that are intricate and specific, probably much better than a lot of other extinction scenarios.
I feel kind of paradigmatically (and morally tbh) opposed to arguments that necessitate asserting death is good. I think there is a substantial burden on the team making this argument to prove that life doesn't have inherent value and substantial warrant work that needs to be done to prove why suffering is worse than death and/or why death prevents worse impacts on scope. I find myself in spark rounds (which I've judged an unfortunate amount lately) frequently feeling as though I am not making the most "technically" correct decision because I am just unwilling to fill in conceded warrants for teams in the same way that I sort of am with conceded case arguments. If you want a more coherent decision from me, I would advise you avoid choosing this strategy.

Theory:

I’ve judged a lot of terrible theory debates, and I do not want to judge more theory debates, like even a little bit. I generally find theory debates very boring. But if you decide to ignore that and do it anyway, please at least read this:

Frivolous theory is bad.
I probably should tell you that I believe disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad, but I will listen to answers to these shells and evaluate the round to the best of my ability. My threshold for paraphrasing good is VERY high.
Debates that seek to establish much narrower interpretations to frame your opponents out of the debate are not debates I would like to judge as they generally feel like a waste of time.
Even if you don’t know the "technical" way to answer theory, do your best to respond. I don't really care if you use theory jargon - just do your best.
I am not sympathetic to answers that amount to whining/complaining about having to participate in a theory debate. These are not arguments. If your coach requires you to do x norm (doesn't let you disclose, etc.), they should be preparing you to defend x norm in round.
not a fan of RVIs
or IVIs for that matter
I will say that despite all the above preferences/thoughts on theory, I really dislike when teams read theory as an easy path to ballot to basically "gotcha" teams that have probably never heard of disclosure or had a theory debate before. I honestly think it's the laziest strategy to use in those rounds, and your speaker points will reflect that. I have given and will continue to give low point wins for this if it is obvious to me that this is what you're trying to do.
But teams debating in the varsity division at big national circuit tournament who paraphrase and/or don't disclose should probably be prepared for theory debates.

Kritiks:

I have a high threshold for critical arguments in PF because I just don’t think the speech times are long enough for them to be good, but there are a few things that will make me feel better about voting on these arguments.

I will listen to anything, but I have a much better understanding and ability to evaluate a round that is topical. I have read a lot of cap and IR theory, and I think these debates are very fascinating. Critical arguments rooted in rejection of the aff or defending the resolution are debates I generally enjoy.
I often find myself feeling a little out of my depth in K rounds, partly because I am not super well versed on most K lit but also because many teams seem to assume judges understand a lot more about their argument than they actually do. The issue I run into with many of these debates is when debaters extend tags rather than warrants which leaves the round feeling messy and difficult to evaluate. If you want to read a kritik in front of me, go ahead, but I'd do it at your own risk. If you do, definitely err on the side of over-explaining your arguments. I like to fully understand what the world of the kritik looks like before I vote for it. If I can't articulate the kritik back to you in my rfd, it's not something I'm going to feel comfortable voting for.
Any argument is going to be more compelling if you write it yourself. Probably don't just take something from the policy wiki without recutting any of the evidence or actually taking the time to fully understand the arguments. K lit is very interesting, and getting a good understanding of it requires going beyond reading the bolded text of cards cut by someone else.
I think theory is the most boring way to answer a kritik. I'll always prefer for teams to engage with the kritik on some level. I have just as frequently voted for k turns + extended case offense outweighs as I have for the k itself. I'm still kind of figuring out how I feel about this with the more K rounds I judge, but I think this rule doesn't apply with non-topical Ks that do nothing with the topic. T is probably a pretty effective way to answer these arguments, although I do not want theory to come at the cost of reading solvency answers and such.

Pet Peeves:

Paraphrasing.
Long evidence exchanges - just send docs.
I don’t flow anything over time, and I’ll be annoyed and drop speaker points if your speeches go more than 5 or so seconds over.
Pre-flow before you get to the room. The round start time is the time the round starts – if you don’t have your pre-flow done by then, I do not care, and the debate will proceed without it.
The phrase "small schools" is maybe my least favorite phrase commonly used in debate. I have judged so many debates where teams get stuck arguing about whether they're a small school, and it never has a point. Literally any school can be a "small school" depending on what metric you use.
The sentence "we'll weigh if time allows" - no you won't. You will weigh if you save yourself time to do it, because if you don't, you will probably lose.
If you're going to ask clarification questions about the arguments made in speech, you need to either use cross or prep time for that.
Tricks are cheating and impossible to resolve fairly. I am not a fan of arguments with the sole purpose of trying to avoid clash in the debate. This is probably one of the most uneducational decisions you could make in the round.
I think "kicking the lay judge" on panels is unstrategic and unfun - volunteer parent judges are a necessary part of this activity in order for tournaments to run, and judge adaptation is an important skill learned in debate, plus I have very often watched the decision in the round come down to the lay judge because the two "techs" disagree.
In round issues of safety are things that should be resolved out of round via the tournament's tab staff and ideally equity committee. If someone feels genuinely unsafe, I do not think that should be something that is debated about.

Congress:

I competed in Congress a few times in high school, and I've judged/coached it a little since then. I dislike judging it because no one is really using it for its fullest potential, and almost every Congress round I've ever seen is just a bunch of constructive speeches in a row. But here are a few things that will make me happy in a Congress round:

I'll rank you higher if you add something to the debate. I love rebuttal speeches, crystallization speeches, etc. You will not rank well if you are the third/fourth/fifth etc. speaker on a bill and still reading new substantive arguments without contextualizing anything else that has already happened. It's obviously fine to read new evidence/data, but that should only happen if it's for the purpose of refuting something that's been said by another speaker or answering an attack the opposition made against your side.
I care much more about the content and strategy of your speeches than I do about your delivery.
If you don't have a way to advance the debate beyond a new constructive speech that doesn't synthesize anything, I'd rather just move on to a new bill. It is much less important to me that you speak on every bill than it is that when you do speak you alter the debate on that bill.

If you have additional questions, ask before or after the round or you can email me at madelyncook23@gmail.com.

Luke Cumbee SF Roosevelt 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 3:22 AM CDT

Experience

18th year in debate. Currently the Director of Debate at SF Roosevelt from South Dakota. Debated 4 years in high school doing traditional LD. Since then I have coached circuit and conservative policy and public forum debate.

Big things - quickly

-Novice: if you aren't prepared for any of the below then don't worry! Just do your thing and welcome to the most educational activity on the planet! Also no matter how unprepared you feel, I didn't know the rebuttal even existed in my first debate! Is this activity hard? Yes. But doing hard things will make everything else in your life easy. All the nerves, preparation, late nights, and beat downs against people whose ACT score blew mine out of the water prepared me for a life where everything was much easier. Stick with it and you'll thank me later! Half of college freshman drop out in their first year, but debaters finish college over 95% of the time - that is no accident!

-Warrants win. Turns win. Weighing wins. Offense wins. Yes I flow.

-Big believer in collapsing in the 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary. Do not go for everything! Your first two speeches add up to 8 minutes and your last speech is 2. How do you expect to go for 8 minutes of argumentation in 2 minutes without sacrificing some serious quality?! Many have tried - all have failed.

-Evidence should be accurately applied throughout the entire debate. It is very annoying when you read 8 minutes of evidence and then never talk about it again. I could have been hanging out with my dogs.

-Quoted evidence is more credible than paraphrased evidence by quite a bit. Paraphrased evidence is more credible than analytics, but only by a little bit.

-I believe the activity is approaching the point where it should be the norm to send all the evidence you read over to your opponent, before your speech, rather than doing this inefficient 1 card at a time nonsense. Whatever you do, please be efficient and it won't be considered prep time.

-If you are at a TOC bid tournament and don't disclose on the wiki then you should consider me a solid 50/50 on voting for disclosure theory.

Small things - rant style

This event should be accessible to all--meaning please keep your rate of delivery in check. No... that does not mean you have to be painfully slow. In fact, you can go fast enough where a typical person would think to themselves "that person is speaking fast." That person, however, should not think to themselves "I can not understand them." 98% of PF debaters are within my expectation here--the 2% should know who you are. Both teams have the right to request their opponent to slow down if they are struggling to keep up. Debate should be for everyone and not just those who can afford debate camp and those who speak English as their first language. If both teams love fast debate, and everyone agrees to it, then let's go all out speed because I enjoy fast debate too (just give me a heads up).

Crossfire is less important to me than most--if something important happens, get it on the flow in your next speech. Grand crossfire is not an opportunity to bring in arguments you didn't get to in the summary. If it wasn't in the summary and the final focus, I probably won't vote on it. Yes, you should frontline in the 2nd rebuttal.

Public Forum time structures are probably not suitable for debating Kritiks with alternatives. However, debating ethics directly related to the topic and arguing it outweighs/should come first is good with me. If you're going the Kritikal route, you should have some fire links to the topic (my threshold is higher on that). Despite having extremely admirable goals and intentions, non-topical K's make this event less accessible and empirically do not make this space more inclusive - otherwise policy numbers would be thriving.

No plan texts or counterplan texts please (Note: a counterplan text is not saying 'another solution is better than the solution being presented by the resolution' -- that's just an argument and you should answer it...)

High threshold on theory. Despite being tech over truth 95+% of the time, I have limited tech expectations on theory since I don't want to punish students who couldn't afford debate camp to learn the technical aspects of theory. If something truly unfair happened in the debate, then go for it by arguing 1) we should have this norm and 2) you violated that norm. To beat theory argue it 1) shouldn't be a norm or 2) you didn't violate the rule or 3) we should have a different norm instead of the one you provided. If you argue theory every debate, I'm not the judge for you. It is a check on unfair debate practices, not a strategy to catch your opponent off guard. I believe I have voted on theory 2 times in the hundreds of rounds I've judged--I have yet to vote on theory in PF.

Random things:

-Link turns need to win a non-unique to be considered offense. You can win a debate with me by going for just this

-Post-dating is good, but you need a warrant for why the date difference matters

-Going for everything is a bad idea. In a typical debate, 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary should start the collapsing process. I agree with the coaches who call 'making choices' the most important skill in debate.

-I am a judge who sees most arguments in gray - not black and white. I struggle with most decisions and not because I didn't understand your arguments.

Finally, debate can be stressful--if you find yourself in an important debate with me as a judge, it might be a good idea to watch the following video. I may be stressed as well and watching it during prep time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZZkZPcxp_I

Questions? Just ask!

Neo Curry Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 26, 2024 at 4:03 AM CDT

TFA STATE 2025 UPDATE:

i’m recovering from a concussion right now, so it would be very appreciated if you spoke slowly, basically treat me like a flay judge

Strake Jesuit '19|University of Houston '23

Email Chain: nacurry23@gmail.com

Questions:nacurry23@gmail.com

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

Arguments that I am comfortable with:

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

Arguments that I am less familiar with:

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

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

Speaking and Speaker Points

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

Miscellaneous Stuff

open cross is fine

flex prep is fine

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to ask me questions about my decision.

do not read tricks or you will probably maybe potentially lose

Ruth Dai Thomas S. Wootton HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 5, 2024 at 6:07 AM EDT

umich '27, debated 4 years for thomas s. wootton '23 on nat circuit, 2x gtoc

tldr:

speed ok, theory eh (see below if planning on running), tech > truth

start an email chain before round starts & add me: ruthdai077@gmail.com

please label said chain "tournament name, year, round, flight, team 1 code vs team 2 code"

in round:

preflow before round

no offtime roadmaps needed, just tell me where you're starting & signpost

i heavily prefer fw be extended in every speech but i won't hold it against u if you dont

spend more time explaining wonky args

if u spread: send speech docs (put in chain--don't put a locked doc). however, even w/ a doc u need to be clear for me to flow--i wont flow off the doc and/or double-check my flow with the doc for you

if u plan to go ultra fast(but not spreading) just give me a warning right before u start

anything not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded

turns must be impacted out and implicated in rebuttal to be voted for. id also strongly strongly strongly prefer them to be weighed when introduced

i have a pretty low threshold for what i consider turns--but 10 word blips labeled as one wont be voted on

if you aren't using your opponents uniqueness for your turn, you have to introduce your own

defense is not sticky and must be implicated in every speech--i wont do it for you

*do not try to blow something up in the next speech when it wasn't implicated in the prior one--i will not evaluate it

i don't believe in uniqueness + probability + clarity of link/impact weighing but if its the only weighing i get ill evaluate it (the only time probability weighing exists is on the link level when the link chain is conceded. otherwise, it exclusively operates as defense)

comparative + meta weighing makes me happy

i default util framing in general & the squo in policy topics, otherwise, i default first (i am open to any alt presumption if this becomes a debate)

on that note, i will try my very hardest to never default; so, the less offense i see on both sides, the lower my standards for winning an argument will be (this applies exclusively to non varsity divisions)

flex prep is fine

cross:

cross goes to the flow if brought up in next speech

chill w skipping grand for a min of prep

open cross is fine

evidence:

carded warranted ev > uncarded warranted analysis > unwarranted carded ev

only will call if: you give me a reason + tell me to, for educational purposes, or just cause

i don't accept cards that aren't cut

miscut ev gets speaks dropped and is knocked off the flow

speaks:

based off strategy & speaking

humor & a chill attitude will get u far

give me a 1 page mla format letter of rec for you from any of my old partners for 30 speaks

evidence challenges:

evidence challenges must be called once the card is introduced/called for

i believe ev challenges always incorporate a level of judge intervention so i prefer not adjudicating them but if it really is that egregious of a violation--you shouldn't have to worry about not picking up my ballot

prog:

in all honesty i started off on the traditional circuit and never fully adapted to new tech and am not great at evaluating progressive. that being said, its the judges obligation to adapt so read (so long as it is inclusive) what you want, just know my best attempt at an rfd will probably not make you super happy.

theory:

if i believe there's an actual violation that endangers people in the round, the shell doesn't matter to me atp, ill just down the team

all shells need to be read in the speech directly following the violation

if you read graphic material, you MUST read a trigger warning + google form opt-out option

on that note: i don’t require tws for non graphic material but that doesn’t mean i don’t evaluate tw theory for such args

running theory just because you know your opponents don't know how to respond is pretty trashy

don't read paraphrasing overviews, just run theory atp

things i wont evaluate:

- tricks

- tko's

- 30 speaks theory

- an identity k that does not apply to u but applies to ur opponents

out of round:

i will always disclose rfd (regardless of tourney rules) and im happy to disclose speaks, just ask

postrounding and being a sore loser are not mutually exclusive, im fine with the former not the latter

if you have any questions prior to the round or after feel free to email me(preferably ask me in the room, im a very lazy typer)

*side note: debate should be fun--run whatever makes you laugh (so long as your opponents are also okay with that type of round)

Theo Datta Richard Montgomery High School 2 rounds

Malcolm Davis The Nueva School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 12:19 PM EDT

Hi I am Malcolm. I am an assistant debate coach with Nueva. I have previously been affiliated with Strath Haven and Edgemont. I have been judging quite actively since 2017. I started in public forum (where I often am to be found), but have coached and judged circuit LD and Policy from time to time. I went to college at Swarthmore, where I studied philosophy and history. I very much enjoy debates, and I love a good joke! I am a staunch advocate of whimsy in all its forms!

I think debates should be fun and I enjoy when debaters engage their opponents arguments in good faith. I can flow things very fast and would like to be on the email chain if you make one! BOTH malcolmcdavis@gmail.com AND nuevadocs@gmail.com

REJOICE, FOR THE BAKER-WARRIORS OCCUPYING SPEECHDROP HAVE WITHDRAWN! I will be happy to usehttps://speechdrop.net/ I think speechdrop is a good choice for elim rounds, so spectators get docs as well. In rounds with spectators, I expect the debaters will offer to put the spectators on the email chain or allow them to view the speechdrop.

if you insist your opponents mark a doc, it goes on prep time. you do not gain free prep time from skipping cards. Feel free to not mark a doc for your opponents, they should be flowing, and can make a theory argument if they please. If the doc and accurate marking thereof are an accessibility issue, I am happy to change the way this is timed given both teams agree and practices are reciprocal.
also if you clip cards I will drop you.

I flow (on paper) (if you find me flowing on my laptop, know that I am sad and desire paper) by listening rather than following along on the doc. I expect you'll be able to tell if you've lost me. Clear =/= slow down , it means clear ! Some debaters are clearer at quicker speeds.

I believe I have a baseline obligation as an educator to ensure the round is safe for all participants. I also have an obligation to the tournament to make sure we have the round in a timely fashion. Finally, I have an obligation to ensure this space is educational and welcoming (I will not allow teams to 'request' spectators not flow on laptops, for example.) I shan't be convinced to act against these obligations.

if you aren't ready to send the evidence in your speech to the email chain, you are not done preparing for your speech, please take prep time to prepare docs. if you are using google docs, please save your file as a .docx before sending it to the email chain. Google docs are unreliable with tournament wifi, and make it harder for your opponent to examine your evidence. PDFs are bad too (your opponent has a right to clear your formatting and read the very small text of your cards) (Prep time ends when you click send on the email, not before). All forms of documents with any kind of restrictions on editing or viewing are unacceptable forms of evidence sharing. PDFs are not acceptable forms of evidence sharing. If using google docs, save as .docx : also, if you need word, raise the jolly roger and avast! https://github.com/massgravel/Microsoft-Activation-Script mac:https://massgrave.dev/office_for_mac

Each paradigm below is updated and moved to the top when I attend a tournament as a judge in that event, but feel free to scroll through all of them if you want a well rounded view on how I judge.

he/him

----

PF Paradigm (updated for emory 25):

Judging paradigm for PF.

I will do my best to evaluate the debate based only what is explained in the round during speech time (this is what ends up on my flow). Clear analysis of the way arguments interact is important. I really enjoy creative argumentation, do what makes you happy in debate. Note that I flow card names and tags and organize my flow thereby, so I would appreciate you extending evidence by name. Also, I just simply have never judged a round where the quantifications or lack thereof have been the deciding factor, do with this info what you will but probably don't triumphantly extend "this is not quantified!!!!" as your only piece of summary defense with me judging. Additionally, I think weighing that doesn't explicitly compare arguments is hardly weighing. We lack standard units in a debate round, so we must place two things on the scale rather than just one. See the excellent McClean 12 ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/42663583?seq=3 ) for more on this !

email chains are good, but DO send your evidence BEFORE the speech. I am easily frustrated by time wasted off-clock calling for evidence you probably don't need to see. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely prep time anyways, and I know you are stealing prep. I am a rather jovial fellow, but when things start to drag I become quite a grouch. I flow by ear and will generally only read evidence if I am interested to, told to during the debate, or need to verify a fact assertion like a post-date.

I am happy to evaluate a k. In general I think more of these arguments are a good thing. LD paradigm has more thoughts here. If your critical approach makes interesting and careful use of difficult literature, I will be overjoyed to judge your round and happy to give high speaker points. If you engage a critical argument in good faith and do so meaningfully (ie, setting aside most procedurals, reading some competing evidence on methods questions, making a more robust permutation claim than 'pdb') You will similarly enjoy high speaker points. One day, interesting KvK throwdowns will happen in this activity, and we will all learn lots from these different sides of the library. I think the K is at its best when it at least has something to say about the topic, but what that means from an affirmative perspective is certainly up for debate. I don't think links of omission are enough.

Theory debates sometimes set good norms. That said, I am largely uninterested in theory. I am no crusader for disclosure, and am troubled by the ways in which theory debates sometimes trivialize questions of 'safety' and 'accessibility' which are almost always under explained and under warranted. I am historically a bad judge for theory, but I love a good T debate.

That said, I will vote on any convincingly won position. Please give reasons why these arguments should be round winning. Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better as a theory shell or a link into a critical position.

I think debates are best when debaters focus on fewer arguments in order to delve more deeply into those arguments. It is always more strategic to make fewer arguments with more reasoning. This is super-charged in PF where there is scarcely time to fully develop even a single argument. Make strategic choices, and explain them fully! I tend to assign speaker points based on the quality of your strategic choice making rather than the quality of your oration, but I am happy to reward effective orators with higher speaker points as well.

---

pref shortcuts:

Phil / High Theory 1

K 1/2

LARP/policy/T 2

Tricks/Theory strike

-----

LD: updated for PFI 24.

philosophy debate is good and I really like evaluating well developed framework debates in LD. That said, I don't mind a 'policy' style util debate, they are often good debates; and I do really love judging a k. The more well developed your link and framing arguments, the more I will like your critical position.

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle. Specific passions/familiarities in Hegel's PdG (Kojeve, Pinkard, Hyppolite, and Taylor's readings are most familiar in that order), Bataille, Descartes, Kristeva, Guattari, Lacan, and scholars writing about them. Know, however, that I encountered these thinkers in different contexts than debaters often approach them in. I enjoy a good Kant debate, but I think these debates are at their best when they are comparing relevant warrants from pieces of well-cut framing evidence, rather than going for dropped analytics that are in the connective tissue of your framework argument.

Good judge for your exciting new frameworks, and I'd definitely enjoy a more plausible util warrant than 'pleasure good because of science'. 'robust neuroscience' certainly does not prove the AC framework, I regret to say.
If your approach to philosophy debate is closer to what we might call 'tricks' , I am less enthusiastic.

Every argument I have heard called an "IVI" would be better if it were a theory shell, or a link into a critical position.

I very much enjoy judging critical arguments, and think that this activity is at its best when the approaches to thought from different slices of the humanities are robustly compared. The aff probably needs to react to / have some relation to the topic but what that means is certainly in the round. Make good use of cx to identify points of interaction between your perspective and the AC, and I expect your debate will be a joy to judge.

I really don't like judging theory debates, although I do see their value when in round abuse is demonstrable. probably a bad judge for disclosure or other somewhat trivial interps.

Put me on the email chain.

Happy to answer questions !

---

Parli Paradigm updated for 2023 NPDL TOC

Hi! I am new-ish to judging high school parli, but have lots and lots of college (apda) judging and competing experience. Open to all kinds of arguments, but unlikely to understand format norms / arguments based thereupon. Err on the side of overexplaining your arguments and the way they interact with things in the debate

Be creative ! Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

------

Policy Paradigm

I really enjoy judging cx. I have an originally PF background but started judging and helping out with this event some years ago now. My LD paradigm is somewhat more current and likely covers similar things.

The policy team I have worked most closely with was primarily a policy / politics DA sort of team, but I do enjoy judging K rounds a lot.

Do add me to the email chain: malcolmcdavis@gmail.com

I studied philosophy and history in college, and love evaluating arguments that engage things from that angle.

I aim for tab rasa. I often fall short, and am happy to answer more specific questions.

If you have more specific questions, ask me before the round or shoot me an email.

---

---| Notes on speech , updated in advance of NSDA nationals 24

Speech is very cool, I am new to judging this, I will do my best to follow tournament guidelines.

I enjoy humor a lot, and unless the event is called "dramatic ______" or something that seems to explicitly exclude humor, it will only help you in front of me, word play tends to be my favorite form of humor in speeches.

Remember to include some humanity in your more analytic speeches, I tend to rank extemp or impromptu speeches that make effective use of candor (especially in the face of real ambiguities) above those that remain solidly formal and convey unreasonable levels of certitude.

---

Parker Anthóny De Dekér Flintridge Preparatory 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 6, 2024 at 7:51 PM EDT

Hi, my name is Parker De Dekér (He/Him), I'm a Student at Columbia University in New York where I study Latin American & Caribbean Studies and Cognitive Science and I work as a Research Advisor at the Bahamian Mission to the UN and IDB. I'm also the Assistant Coach for Congress at Taipei American School, and do a lot of committee and organizational work throughout the Speech & Debate Community.

While in High School, I got some variety of exposure to any and every event that our community has to offer, so rest-assured I come from an experience background where I'm happy to see you run whatever you want, as long as it's respectful and has a place in the round.

Congressional Debate

Repetition & Refutation: The recurrence of similar ideas in the first two cycles of debate is okay; subsequently, I either want to hear new points that highlight the issues brought forward to focus on achieving a resolution or I want to be listening to you refute your opponent's points. I respond to engaging speeches with dynamic responses to specific arguments mentioned earlier in the round and points of note referenced by the speaker’s name; it demonstrates you are actively listening to others and formulating new material as the round progresses. A memorable speech that I can flow assists me when filling out my rankings upon completing the round.

Speaking: I am comfortable with spreading; however, this is a Congressional debate, and spreading is non-sensical when getting your point across, especially if you are trying to emphasize or embolden certain points. I prefer to see open, engaging dialogue over a flurry of nonsensical interjections. I enjoy speakers that show a genuine passion for what they are talking about.

As the round goes on and the material becomes more repetitive, I WILL flow less of what is presented. If you are debating in a later cycle and still want a place on my ballot, you need to fight for it, that comes by distinguishing yourself stylistically. Refute your opponents' arguments, weigh the round, and if you are one of the final speakers PLEASE CRYSTALIZE. I will give you higher speaker points if you attempt on crystal speech and do okay, rather than give a constructive one with no refutation and do great. In my opinion, crystallizing the round is a difficult task; if you do it well, I'll remember you!

Decorum: As a judge, I appreciate your ability to respect your PO, Parliamentarian, Competitors, and Judges with formal language and modest amounts of well-timed humor. It is your responsibility to ensure you monitor time signals and adhere to PO policies.

Equity and inclusion are integral points in how I judge a round. I expect to hear demonstrated efforts to make a round more inclusive for others through the usage of correct terminology, proper pronouns, etc. Explicit acts to infringe upon a person's identity, including, but not limited to, their race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, religion, or other such disregard, will result in an immediate drop in ranking status.

Presiding: As an experienced Parliamentarian (and High School PO) I'm very familiar with the intricacies of presiding. If you are running against someone as the presiding officer, I hope you are decently experienced. If you are stepping up to preside, I will take that into account when filling out my rankings; however, if you say you are an experienced PO, list a whole bunch of tournaments you've presided at, and then still fail to provide efficient presiding, I'm going to consider that a bluff, and include comments about it in your RFD. Even if I'm not the parliamentarian, I will still be keeping track of precedence and recency and your employment of Roberts Rules of Order. I consider efficient, organized, and experienced POs equivalent to quality speakers and will rank my POs on the same level during the round. I appreciate a well-run chamber where all parties are held to the highest standard and will make a note of those who rise to the occasion.

Public Forum:

I will flow everything in the round, even Cross-Ex, so if your opponent asks a question in cross-ex and you don't carry that argument through the round, I'm going to believe that you either weren't paying attention in Cross or you are not responding to the question; however, if you are the one answering the question and your counter never appears later in the round, I'm also dropping it from the flow. I encourage you to run whatever you like; however, I enjoy progressive arguments in PF. Yes I know, a public forum is supposed to be very accessible, and I agree. Still, it should also be a learning opportunity, so responding to abuses of the debating environment (T-Shell), introducing frameworks (I wish I didn't have to mention this, but I do), moral imperatives and interpretations are all appreciated. That said, if you are trying to run a T-Shell in JV or Novice, I will be a little concerned; save this for varsity. In terms of speed, I've competed in almost every debating style, so I am very familiar and comfortable with spreading; however, I'm not a big fan of spreading in PF, so fast paces are okay, spreading to a point that puts your competitor and a disadvantage will be labeled as abusive, please don't do this.

What I Love to See: Impact calculus- it is the most important thing to me; please weigh & please tell me how to vote so I don’t have to intervene in any capacity. I also like to see super high respect for your opponent. This is such an underrated part of PF that is not nearly as present in LD or Policy, and it totally should be.

A few things I hate in rounds:

- Swearing, I wish it were obvious but you would be surprised. This lacks professionalism if it is not needed to make points. Same goes for using basic filler such as like, um, literally, err, but, stupid, etc. If you use these, your not going to get a 30 from me for your speaker points.

- "Stealing" prep- if you need prep take it, if you are sitting for more than 15 seconds without telling me that you are taking prep, having tech issues, etc, I'm going to start the prep clock.

- Experienced debaters being overly hard on novices- we want to keep them in the activity, don't discourage them by running super dense over the top arguments- you will probably win if you just run a standard argument simply by being more experienced.

-Straight Theory Arguments: Are done to death, and aren't making either debater better. If it wins, I'll still pick you up, but I would prefer to see educational rounds.

-Do not run a "fairness" argument that you couldn't prep against your opponent, and then you have a case completely against your opponent. This demonstrates that you lied about the fairness argument; I'm dropping it.

-DEBATE SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCLUSIVE! The usage of any verbiage or dialogue that is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, anti-semitic, islamophobic, nativist, xenophobic, classist, or abusive will result in an immediate loss of the round, and a speaker score below 20, this is not tolerated while I am a judge.

Lincoln Douglas & Policy:

1. I will be flowing all of the debate, but I appreciate it when you slow down on the authors and taglines, even if you are spreading. I'm very comfortable with spreading, but I ask that you put me on the email chain parker.dedeker@gmail.com

2. Even in complex debates in LD and CX, I want to see the debate a clear storyline that properly compares the resolution to the context of the squo, and explains how arguments within the round interact with one another. I'm a huge lover of Phil. debate, but not framework debate. I don't want to make it to the 2AR and still be arguing about what the Value/VC is for the round. If there is no way for you to adopt the same value for the res then just provide a holistic approach to explaining how your args can suffice both values and criteria for the round.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I am often more invested when you approach the aff case with new and innovative arguments that still engage with the topic.

4. Please know what you’re talking about. The easiest way for you to lose a round is to look for an argument that is "irrefutable," "shiny" or non-topical because it sounds good and like an easy win, but then have no tangible way of continuing the argument without sole reliance on the card. When students are well-read/versed on the things that they are reading, and have an ability to care and genuinely understand them, I am easily engaged and feel better positions to vote for you. That being said, being well-read does equate to using complex jargon all the time. This is not really appealing to me, and can also come off as an unfair approach to the round, especially because not every team/school has the resource to equip them with these complexities. If your wording doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate, I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. Progressive Debate: So this has become a huge debate in recent years on the circuit, and coming from Wisconsin, I'm used to competitors being dropped for running prog, but surprisingly, I absolutely love progressive debate. I will vote for Theory, T debates, Kritik, plans, CPs, etc, but I do not believe that running a progressive approach is a necessarily substantive response to certain arguments. This being established, if you choose to run a Prog case, there are a few things you need to do: prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, and actual education lost for T debates. Establish why the resolution cannot be debated and why you have to run a CP/Plan (your DAs need to be crystal clear and need to be used to set up the case before you move into the CP in the 1NC) or provide me with genuine context about why the philosophy, theory, or kritik holds more validity to be debated over the topicality within the round. While I love prog debate, my caveat is--you need to know your audience. If you have a competitor who is in a position where they cannot respond to your arguments because of their complexity/lack of literature to disprove or position your competitor within the round where they cannot logistically win the round in your own opinion, then I cannot vote for the prog arguments, because it doesn't allow the debate to be educational.

All Events: If you ever need an explanation of your feedback, or want a more in-depth response, email me parker.dedeker@gmail.com I WILL NEVER leave you a blank ballot. If this happens, it is a mistake, please send me an email, and I'll see what I can do.

Best of luck to you in your rounds today and tomorrow. Your speaking will change lives, even if it is just one, I promise.

Jordan Di Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2024 at 7:25 AM EDT

Northwestern, Peninsula, GBN

Emails

High School: jordandi505@gmail.com

College: jordandi505@gmail.com;debatedocs@googlegroups.com

Evaluation

I will flow and decide according to that flow. Technical execution and judge instruction combined with that flow will override most preferences, mainly due to my lack of attachment to particular preferences. One exception to this is what I will describe as "frivolous" theoretical objections. The bar is higher for explanation, and justification of these arguments. I fear any attempt to impart objectivity over this category of argumentation could lead to egregious overcorrection.

I begin flowing during the 1NC on the case page. I will pay attention to 1AC and 1NC. I never have the doc open while flowing, but I will usually look at cards during cross-x and prep time.

Other than the fact that I will flow, everything is incredibly malleable. Judge instruction and framing should be utilized early and often to resolve central questions. Most things can and should be contested, ranging from impact calculus to the permissibility of “new” arguments to inserting a re-highlighting. If a team forwards a claim + warrant for how I should evaluate a particular issue, it is the burden of the other team to refute that. The only exception that comes to mind is if it’s “new” in the 2AR, where I will reasonably protect the Neg.

I tend to decide quickly. That rarely has anything to do with the quality of the debate. Rather, I have been able to follow the core questions of the debate, which allows me to evaluate it as the debate is ongoing.

I have zero desire to adjudicate anything not about the debate itself.

Potentially helpful statistics:

College (Clean Energy) - 35 debates. I voted Neg 24 times. 18 panels, sat 2 times.

High School (IP) - 40 debates. I voted Neg 30 times. 13 panels (excluding RRs), sat 3 times.

Planless Affs

Thus far, Aff teams that impact turn T have fared better in front of me than other approaches.

Debate is certainly a game, but it may be more.

T impacts about fairness / clash are more persuasive to me than others.

I think most 2ACs to even generic critiques, such as the Capitalism K, are poor and easily defeated.

The sole purpose of my ballot is to decide the winner / loser of a single debate.

The K should either be a DA to the plan or a framework argument that brackets the Aff out of the debate. I am worse for anything in the middle.

If both teams forward a framework argument, I will usually resolve that first. I will strictly to the interpretations forwarded by both teams. It's important for teams to clearly explain and compare the implications of their interpretations.

A note on “death good.” I won't vote for anything endorsing self-harm or violence against anyone in the debate. That differs from arguments like spark/wipeout, the "death k," or some revolutionary praxis. I think the line is generally between arguments about the people within the debate vs actual academic controversy.

I must know what the CP does, and what it solves to vote for it. The combination of a vague CP text with a lack of explanation is not persuasive.

“Process” CPs are fair game. I have no strong disposition against these strategies. I think I am relatively more persuaded by substance, as opposed to competition or theory, against these arguments than the average person. However, that is not to say I think most 2As are prepared to execute such a strategy (in fact, it seems to be quite the opposite). All that being said, I would prefer it if the CP had topic-specific evidence.

I am good for a model of competition based on “functional only” and “text and function.” Winning a model of “textual only” is a hard sell but not impossible.

Theory

Conditionality and judge kick are good. A longer ramble with specifics is below under “Long Conditionality Ramble.” My line is probably fiating out a straight turn to offense the Neg introduced.

Judge kick is my default. It will be difficult to make me not consider the status quo with only a theoretical objection. This must start in the 1AR.

Nothing is a voting issue aside from conditionality.

Most theoretical objections can be expressed through competition, and I would prefer that. This is mainly because most theory interpretations are incredibly arbitrary. There may be some exceptions to that, including, but not limited to, “fiating multiple governments” bad, “CPs must be policies,” and “fiating federal and sub-federal actors” bad.

Fiat is usually durable, good faith passage, and implementation of the plan.

Any "type" of DA is a free game, so long as you are prepared to defend it.

Recent and specific evidence is preferred but can be beaten by smart analytics and spin.

Fiating in offense is underutilized.

Turns case arguments (especially if carded) and “fast” DAs frequently swing debates for me.

Debatability is more important to me than predictability. This is not categorical, but when the difference in the predictability of both interpretations is minimal, I care more about the quality of debates.

Provide a clear vision of what the topic should encompass and directly contrast it with the opposing teams' interpretation.

Cards to support various parts of a T argument are underutilized.

Quibbles

None of these will decide a debate but may affect speaker points depending on my mood.

Here are some (I am sure the list will grow longer):

1. Please don’t refer to this paradigm. I have physically cringed every time this has happened, please stop. I might also prefer you refer to me as “judge” than randomly mentioning my name throughout a speech (though this is much more situation-dependent).

2. Poorly formatted speech documents. I follow along during CX and tend to read cards during prep and other dead time. Bad formatting makes this difficult and annoying. This is not to say you must format in a particular way, but relative uniformity of tags, headers, and the like would be nice. There should not be deleted headers, and tags, etc. This applies equally to card docs.

3. Too much dead time. Let’s pick up the pace, especially if you want to give me time to decide.

Others

Evidence ethics or anything else in a similar vein should typically be debated. That's what I prefer but if there is a clear violation consistent with tournament policy, the onus is on the debaters to direct me to stop the round and address it.

"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone uses gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

***Long Conditionality Ramble***

Here are my thoughts for the NEG. I don’t really have AFF thoughts other than maybe that these will be the most important things for you to grapple with. Things I am good for the NEG about:

1. I have yet to see a 1NC where I thought the 2A's job was so difficult that it would be impossible to substantively respond. For example, you don't NEED an 8 subpoint response with 5 cards to answer the Constitutional Convention CP. The flip side of this for the AFF is either establishing a clear and consistent violation from the 2AC onward or focusing on the "model" of debate to override my presumption that maybe this 1NC wasn't too bad.

2. NEG flex is great. Two sets of arguments are persuasive to me here. First, side bias. 2AR is certainly easier than the 2NR. I am unsure about "infinite prep," but I am persuaded that AFFs typically can answer most NEG arguments thematically. For example, having a good "certainty key" or "binding key" warrant addresses a whole swath of potential CPs. Second, the topic. Teams that appeal to the nature of the topic (honestly for either side) are persuasive to me. For example, the idea that appeals to "specificity" allows the AFF to murder core generics is one I find persuasive.

3. The diminishing utility of conditionality seems true to me. Appeals to "infinite condo" allowing the nth degree of advocacies is something I am presumptively skeptical about. There are only so many arguments in the NEG box that disagree with the 1AC in different ways. Take what I said about being able to answer arguments thematically to apply here. In addition, for the NEG to accomplish such a massive proliferation, arguments tend to be incomplete. Again, this was talked about above.

4. "Dispo" is a bit ridiculous. The 2AC must define it (the NEG needs to implicate this still). The only other thought I have other than the "plank + process spam" stuff (which I like) is that I can be persuaded "dispo" would mostly only ever allow one advocacy. It now seems intuitive to me that absent 1NC construction that made sure every DA was a net benefit to every CP, the 2A could force the NEG to have to extend everything but since one links to the net benefit, it would be impossible to vote NEG.

5. This is more of a random quibble that I think can be used to frame a defense of conditionality. It seems logical to me that the ability of the AFF to extend both conditionality and substance in the 1AR, forcing the 2NR to cover both in a manner to answer inevitable 2AR shenanigans (especially nowadays) is the same logic criticized by "condo bad" as the 2AR can pick and choose with no cost. It seems worse in this case given the NEG does not have a 3NR to refute the 2AR in this scenario. This is a firm view, but it seems much easier to me for the 2AC to answer the fourth mediocre CP in the 1NC (like uncooperative federalism lol) than for the 2NR to answer the 5-minute condo bad 2AR that stemmed from a 45-second 1AR.

Colin Downes Sidwell 7 rounds

Last changed on Sun November 10, 2024 at 5:51 AM EDT

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

The stuff you probably care most about:

The K and K affs are now older than the debaters running them and I'd struggle to even term them non-normative ways of engaging with debate at this point. I can be convinced of a lot in the space of the round about the proper purposes and form of the activity, but you have to be prepared to defend a view of what each side in the debate is for, what their burdens are, and how that model of debate is good and sustainable not just in one round but as a vision for the activity as a whole. I think the traditional arguments for the virtues of topical, plan-focused, switch-side debate are substantial: I've voted for framework before and I have no doubt I will again. Even if I think you're being a little bit of a cop about it and tend to think it would be much more strategic for you to substantively engage with your opponents' advocacy.

Speed—it's fine to a point, but frankly? Keep a lid on it. I can keep a good flow in most rounds I see, judging ~30 CX rounds a year split roughly evenly between my local circuit and the national circuit. But I do it by ear, not off speech docs. So it's gotta be clear as crystal. And I'm not often in the back of the room for *very* fast rounds, so I just don't get much practice at those. If you cross my information processing threshold and I can't hear the warrants of your cards or make sense of your analytics, that's a problem (for you). That goes double if the debate is online: you're just flatly not as clear as if we were sitting in a room together and I absolutely need you to slow down to compensate for that. Unfortunately it's impossible to articulate a brightline on this.

Assorted cantankerous stuff I care about:

Cross ex is important. It is a speech, it's binding, we named the event after it, I pay very close attention to it and I firmly believe rounds can be won and lost in cross. It's also just the most dynamic and fun part of the round. I have given up on trying to fight for closed cross but just know it's very embarrassing if, for example, your 1N can't answer basic questions about the K alt or your 1A can't answer basic questions about your solvency mechanism. If it's obvious you're out to sea without your partner to cover for you it'll be reflected in speaks.

I will vote on defense. A well-articulated, warranted, and contextualized no link argument extended into the last rebuttal can absolutely get me to give zero weight to an impact. RelatedlyI default to a strong view that the aff has the initial burden of production and will vote on presumption.

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

I have no way to fairly adjudicate out of round conduct (which includes a range of things from disclosure to various forms of inappropriate behavior) and being asked to do so makes me uncomfortable.

I have a pretty strong preference for depth > breadth.

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

Evidence violations are shockingly pervasive in PF, as a consequence of bad evidence exchange norms, the constraints of the format's time limits, and widespread use of paraphrasing. In part as a response to this dire state of affairs, I hold students to a high standard on evidence ethics and have a comparatively low threshold for signing a ballot on an evidence violation. In my view, a paraphrase which substantially distorts the content of a card is distortion in the sense of the NSDA evidence rules: call them on it, end the round, and I'll vote on it. I will ask for evidence I think sounds fake or misrepresented. I will take an evidence ethics issue to tab on my own initiative even if not raised by your opponents.

Relatedly, your opponents are well within their rights to ask for every piece of evidence you read or paraphrase, which you must then promptly produce to them in a manner which clearly shows, through e.g. highlighting or underlining, what portions of the evidence you read or paraphrased. I will deck your speaks if you aren't able to satisfy that extremely minimal demand, which LD and CX debaters manage to do without the drama and wasted time that attends it in many PF rounds.

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

For related reasons, I have a high threshold for voting on theory in PF. Theory plays an important role as a guardrail to ensure fairness. But if you do not have a credible in-round abuse story or it looks like you are cynically using highly technical arguments to bully a team you are calculating will be less familiar with theory debates, I will be spending the entirety of the debate looking for any halfway justifiable excuse to drop you.

Who are you?

I debated CX at Scituate High School in the trad oratory / conventional stock issues focused style of the Southeastern Massachusetts Debate League, then at UMASS where I learned everything I actually know about debate from Jillian Marty and turned into a little K hack. I have been the Upper School Debate Coach for Sidwell Friends School since fall 2022 and previously was an assistant coach for policy debate at James Madison High School in Virginia.

In terms of my non-debate life, I am among other things a Christian and a lawyer for a labor union.

Ishan Dubey Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 19, 2024 at 4:44 PM EDT

For evidence exchange, questions, etc., use: ishan.debate@gmail.com

I competed in PF at Strake Jesuit from 2019-2023 and am currently the PF coach.

General

In nearly all debates, I am persuaded by the arguments articulated by the debaters above all else. I try to avoid being dogmatic.

When left to my own devices, I will assess the arguments* in the debate to determine if the plan/resolution/advocacy would be comparatively advantageous.

*Arguments require a warrant. Impacts are not assumed.

Speak clearly. Slow down on taglines and for emphasis. Debate is an oral activity; I will not vote for an argument I cannot follow, make sense of, or otherwise understand. You may not "clear" your opponents.

Cross-ex is binding. Relevant stuff must make its way into a speech.

Every word of flex prep must be timed, including the questions themselves. I am generally not a fan of clarifying questions.

Evidence

Quality evidence matters. I am increasingly likely to intervene against unethical practices and egregious misrepresentation, but I prefer evidence comparison by the debaters.

Cards should be cut and contain at least: descriptive taglines (I can be persuaded by "it was not in the tag" and "it was in the tag"), relevant citations, and the full paragraph you quote from.

Send speech docs before speaking (word, preferably). Speech docs should include all the evidence you plan on introducing. Marking afterward does not require prep. A marked doc is also not necessary assuming clear or minimal verbal marking in-speech.

If you believe someone is violating the rules, conduct an evidence challenge (I am sympathetic to them). I cannot evaluate theory arguments about rule violations. Producing evidence and/or a copy of the original source in a timely manner generally means 60 seconds, but this may change depending on the context. The punishment for not doing so when asked by me or your opponents is a loss.

Please read the applicable evidence rules for your tournament. I will enforce them.

Avoid paraphrasing.

Expect me to have topic knowledge.

Sound analytics are often convincing, but usually not blips.

Defense is not "sticky."

Second rebuttal must frontline.

Extensions are relevant not to tick a box but for clarity and parsing clash. I am usually not nitpicky.

Circular explanations of non-utilitarian framing arguments are unpersuasive.

Because of time constraints, you may insert re-highlights.

1FF weighing is fine, but earlier is better.

Probability weighing is best when compared to the opposing argument as initially presented. Timeframe is when the sum of your argument occurs, not the individual part you choose to emphasize (unless that part is employed creatively, e.g. link alone turns case). "Intervening actors" is most often just new, under-warranted defense.

Slipshod, hasty weighing is overvalued. Even quality weighing will not always compensate for sloppy or underwhelming case debating. Judge instruction, however, is undervalued: telling me how to evaluate the debate will make my decision more predictable.

That said, I generally find "timeframe" more relevant than "try-or-die" and "link" more important than "uniqueness."

The Pro/Con should probably both be topical. Alts involving fiat are counter-plan adjacent.

I reward creativity and hard work. Laziness, not to be confused with simplicity, is disappointing.

LD/CX

I have enough exposure to both events to keep up but will be unfamiliar with the topic.

Best for policy debates; fine for most else.

Not a huge fan of abusing conditionality.

Text and function are probably good standards for competition.

Theory

I am biased toward theory arguments about bad evidence and disclosure practices, especially when there is in-round abuse. I am biased against frivolous and heavily semantical theory interpretations.

Defaults are no RVIs (a turn is not an RVI and "no RVIs" does not exclude offense from OCIs), reasonability > CI, spirit > text, DTA, and respond in the next speech.

Err on the side of over-explanation. Fully Impact stuff out.

Very hesitant to vote on discourse-based arguments or links not specific to your opponent's actions and/or reps in the debate.

Any response strategy is fine. Better than most for Framework and Topicality.

Non-starters

Ad-homs/call-outs/any unverifiable mudslinging.

Tricks.

Soliciting speaker points.

Misc

Avoid dawdling. Questions, pre-flowing, etc. should all happen before the start time.

Speaker points are relative and assigned according to adherence to my paradigm and incisiveness.

Post-rounding is educational and holds judges accountable. Just don't make it personal.

Have fun but treat the activity and your opponents seriously and with respect.

Katheryne Dwyer Taipei American School 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 1, 2024 at 10:16 PM EDT

hey! i'm katheryne. 3yo, junior at uchicago, assistant coach at taipei american school, and lead coach at national debate club.

please add taipeidocz@gmail.com and katheryne@cdadebate.com to the chain.

if you're looking for coaching or interested in national circuit debate from a school without a robust program, check out national debate club! please feel free to ask me/email me about it at the email above if you have any questions!

tl;dr: good judge for substance, pretty good judge for k, mid judge for theory, bad judge for anything else. past serious in round abuse (meaning discrimination) everything in this paradigm is up for debate and justifications about why i should/should not judge this way. debate is competitive but be kind. i change my paradigm a lot, please ask me questions if you have them.

if you have a question about whether i will like evaluating an argument simply ask me

** what can i go for in front of you?

substance: 1
k neg (k w/ topic link): 2
soft left: 3
theory: 3
k aff (non-t k): 3/4
IVI: 4/5
tricks: strike

in divisions rather than varsity ask permission from your opponents before reading anything but substance, if you don't i'll be super sympathetic to "what even is this/i can't respond to this"

** substance/general (applies to all types of arguments!):

1. pretty standard tech judge. i start with weighing to determine highest level of offense, then determine best link in.

2. i love good defense, but you gotta implicate it properly for me to care. a defensive argument can either be terminal (if you implicate D as terminal, i will eval it as such), or it can be mitigatory. unimplicated defense is automatically mitigatory. mitigatory defense should be implicated as weighing. feel free to ask qs about this if you have them.

3. carded + warranted > warranted analytic w/ no card > carded claim w/ no warrant. i love smart analytics.

4. warrants are very important to me. every claim and piece of evidence needs a warrant, arguments need warrants in link ext to be properly extended.

5. extensions of all types are important to me. if your extension has no internal link or no impact is extended i will notice. i do not generally autodrop in an otherwise competitive round for crappy extensions, but i will do so if the opponents point them out. consistency in the backhalf is important to me. if your responses are shifty between summary and FF, they may as well not exist on my flow and my decision will reflect that even if the opponents don't call it out. this includes changing the warrant under the same cardname.

6. respond to args in next speech, nothing is sticky.

7. all competing claims must be compared in some manner or i will, by definition, either have to intervene or ignore them. this means: competing pieces of evidence, links into the same impact, competing weighing mechs, etc.

8. i like less, better developed and implicated arguments than a bunch of spammed poorly implicated ones. narrative is a good skill no matter what level you're debating at. EDIT: i have judged a lot of rounds recently where there is a noticeable tradeoff between how much offense teams go for and how well it's won. it is easier to win my ballot by going for no more than two offensive arguments in the FF and winning them well.EDIT EDIT: IT DOES NOT IMPRESS ME WHEN YOU FRONTLINE YOUR FOUR CONTENTIONS IN ONE MINUTE IN 2ND REBUTTAL. PLZ WARRANT. PLZ WIN YOUR OFFENSE.

9. if no offense i presume neg. if a ton of floating offense is won and isn't compared, i will try as best i can to resolve the round without intervening, and presume neg if there is truly no way.

10. speed is fine, i have never met a PF round i could not flow if there 1. are docs 2. is clarity and 3. is signposting. i will clear you once, past that you're on your own. if you are not a clear speaker, you need to slow down in front of me.

11. i won't auto-drop on evidence ethics violations if i notice them without you telling me to. this is intervention. in egregious cases i'll tank speaks. there are levels of evidence problems. if you just want me to cross something off of my flow, tell me to read it + cross it off. if there’s a serious and persistent power tagging/misrepresentation problem, that’s a voting issue, give me warrants why & i will likely vote on it. formal challenges are a waste of a debate, but of course i will evaluate them if levied.opportunistically levied challenges pmo. if there’s a challenge, and your intention is to call it, do it immediately after abuse.

12. i don't mind if you postround, i take a long time to make decisions because i write long RFDs and think about each part of the round before voting (even if the decision is very simple i'll write about each argument extended through FF on my ballot). but i am also human and my tolerance for disrespect is low, so be polite.

** theory:

i am so bored of judging disclosure debates. i get that sometimes it’s the best path to the ballot and i can’t fault you for it, but your speaks are capped at 28 if you read disclo in front of me in prelims. elims - do what you will for the panel.

1. flexible preferences: default CIs, no RVIs, T uplayers K. less flexible preferences: theory immediately after abuse, prefer shell format to paragraph, text over spirit of interp, won't vote on out of round abuse, won't vote on ad homs, much more hesitant to vote on out of round impacts than in round impacts.

2. pf theory debates are complicated by the fact that none of us agree on what the above words mean. to me: RVIs do not apply to arguments which garner independent offense. an RVI would be to win bc you won a terminal defensive argument on a theory shell and the argument that i should punish the team that introduced theory with an L if they lose it. which means that i will vote on an OCI even if no RVIs is won but i will not vote on a defensive CI if no RVIs is won.if your CI is an OCI, tell me. if you think their CI is a DCI, tell me.

3. i am very sympathetic to this, but ultimately "idk how to deal w/ theory" isn't a workable response in varsity tournaments. i will give a long RFD explaining what happened and how you could have responded, but i won't ever down a varsity team for reading theory on face.

4. layering arguments are crucial when there are several offs. even when there is only one off, i need the DTD + theory uplayers weighing extended through final to vote on it.

5. unverifiable claims like “our coach doesn’t let us meet the interp” are very difficult for me to vote on. you either need to produce evidence in some manner, or find a different way to engage.

6. the "jargon as extension of implied warrant" problem in pf is especially bad in theory debates, which is probably why i dislike them so much. the two words "norm setting" in the ff are not enough to justify a ballot for me, do more.

7. my personal leanings: OS disclosure is good, i care very little about the rest of these random disclosure interps. paraphrasing is bad, hard to defend as an academic practice. i cannot be bothered to pretend i care about author quals. that being said i think there's very little relationship between what i personally care about and will vote for in a debate round,there is no interp i will on face hack against/i think for me to deem certain interpretations "frivolous" based on my personal opinions would be arbitrary & interventionist.

** k neg (w/ topic link):

when done well, these are some of my favorite debates and i will defend their educational value (yes, even in PF) to the grave. when done poorly, these are hands down my least favorite debates. do not assume i will hack for a poorly read K, or give you good speaks.

1. i prefer really specific link debates. omission, for example, is not a good link. vague gestures at their model/narrative/manner of thinking are not good links. often, the problem is not the argument itself, just the lack of specificity.i dislike you link you lose arguments, this constitutes "k debate done poorly" to me. clash is important and methods testing kritiks is what makes a good k debate. as the team who introduced the kritik you should defend the kritik and aim to win on the k sheet.

2. the difficulty with alts in PF is the biggest incompatibility between the argument and format. some alts are just straight up CPs, i am sympathetic to procedural arguments about that not being allowed, i am open to defenses of that practice as well. i am warming up on reject alts if the rest of your advocacy is very specific, and there's good cohesion between rejection and your framing. i am personally skeptical of discourse shapes reality arguments but will of course vote for them if they are won.

3. i am open to basically any way to see my ballot (prioritization of X, worlds comparison, some obligation as an educator/judge, etc) i am equally open to the idea that asking me to use my ballot in certain ways probably opens up ground for T arguments. that being said, my inclination is against deleting 4 minutes of aff (first speaking) ground, i want to weigh the case, i am easily persuaded by arguments that tell me to do so. winning K turns case = easiest way to my ballot w/ the K.

4. going for framework, DAs on alt solvency, link D, and perms is the most impressive method of engagement to me in pf. doing this well is usually a 30 and the W.

5. do not read a paraphrased k in front of me. disclose the k.

** k aff (non-t):

i understand these arguments probably above average amongst pf tech judges, and have a lot of experience reading and judging them, but i honestly don't like them very much. that being said i'll eval anything and vote for anything that's won.

1. you need to be really convincing about why it is educational not to debate the topic, i think T decently read is quite convincing. i do not think T is violent but i'll eval it. won't hack for T, will vote for k aff if T is beat, but if T is competently defended i generally think it is convincing.

2. need good explanation of importance of the ballot. will not vote on these args if i do not understand why i am meant to do so.

3. if you're hitting a K aff, do something better than "but this is PF." i vote for T and cap against k affs easily. do that instead. creative methods of engagement are also great, but i really will just vote for T.

4. i generally do not think identity positions are immune from disclosure arguments. i understand arguments about outing and will flow them. but i am easily convinced that disclosure is still important. obviously evidence and paraphrasing norms are dependent on the style/type of evidence used, use best practices and be ready to defend them.

5. i don't personally think pf speeches are long enough to do any justice to ontological claims about the genesis of existent societal structures (settler colonialism, anti-blackness, etc), but if you think you can prove me wrong go wild.

Zach Dyar Delbarton School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 8, 2024 at 9:29 AM CDT

Lakeland Note: My camera is not working for an "unknown reason" on NSDA campus. I am in your round if I'm in the room, just assume I'm not going anywhere.

Pet Peeve: Poorly extended arguments. Please extend your arguments well. There is a sweet spot between brevity and depth that you should try to hit, but don't extend your case in 5 seconds please. This is a hill I will die on, and so will my ballot.

Feel free to email for questions, feedback, or flows: zdyar07@gmail.com . Also add it to any email chains.

TLDR: I'm a typical flow judge. I value quality of argumentation over quantity. Please collapse, extend warrants and impacts, frontline, and weigh your arguments. I'm fairly tech (see my notes at the bottom and make your own assessment). I also tend to think a lot-- I don't always vote on the path of least resistance, I vote on what's warranted, implicated and extended in the context of the round.

Background: Was a mediocre PF debater for 4 years in Minnesota at both traditional and nat circuit tournaments. Graduated from UW-Madison in 2023 with degrees in Economics and Political Science. Coached and judged since 2020 freelance, then Delbarton, and now as the Director of PF at Bronx Science

Basic Judging Philosophy I vote off of what is warranted, I prefer what is weighed. Give me reasons to prefer your warranting over their warrants and do weighing that COMPARES your impact to their impact by telling me why yours is more important and WHY. Don't just say a buzzwords like "scope" or "de-link" and move on.

After the round: I will give you an oral RFD if possible once I submit my ballot, and feel free to question/post-round me because it makes me a better judge. I will also call for cards (see evidence section).

Speed

- I can handle around 250 words per minute BUT only if you slow down on taglines. Send a speech doc if you are going fast or have bad clarity.

- Reading fast is not an excuse to be blippy. Speed should allow you to have better warranting and more depth, not less. Speed + 6 contention cases are not the move

Evidence

- DO NOT send me a full PDF and tell me what to control+F. I doc speaks for bad norms in this department. I also will evaluate para theory, but that doesn't mean I'll hack for it.

Rebuttal

- Number your responses so it's easy for me to flow.

- You MUST frontline offense in 2nd rebuttal, and I strongly strongly strongly prefer you frontline every arg you are going for fully.

- Disads are fine in rebuttal. If a DA is read in second rebuttal, I'm more lenient on frontlines/responses in 1st summary. Try and link-in if you read a DA.

Summary & Final Focus

- I have a VERY high threshold for case extensions (lots of warrants plz). Don't underextend or you will probably lose.

- I prefer defense to be in summary (defense isn't sticky). I will maybe evaluate defense that is extended from 1st rebuttal to 1st Final Focus ONLY IF it is cold dropped, but there is a low chance I will evaluate 2nd rebuttal to Final Focus defense. I will never evaluate defense that isn't extended in Final Focus. Your best chance of winning defense is to extend it in both summary and final focus.

- Offense needs to be in both summary and FF.

- If you don't collapse, frontline, and weigh in summary, you probably won't win my ballot.

Theory

- I will vote on theory, but I prefer it to be read in the first speech possible (i.e., don't read a shell in 2nd rebuttal if it can be read in 2nd constructive).

- I'm not a theory expert-- don't assume I have strong technical knowledge of foundational theory concepts like RVIs, reasonability vs CIs, etc. For instance, I almost screwed up a decision because I didn't know whether a specific response qualified as an RVI or not bc no one explained it to me. So explain and implicate that kind of stuff for me more than other tech judges.

- If you use theory to exclude your opponents and you have structural advantages in the debate community I will you drop the shell faster than you can read your interp. But, if it's two well-resourced programs bashing each other over the head with theory and/or there was a serious violation, carry on.

- Don't extend your shell in rebuttal (you shouldn't extend case in rebuttal either).

- I've voted on Ks several times before, but I'm not well-versed in the lit so slow down on tags and key warrants.

- You need to at least have minimalist extensions of the link, impacts, and all other important parts of your arg (framing/ROB) in summary AND Final. Don't try and read the whole thing verbatim.

Progressive weighing

- Progressive weighing is cool-- I like well-warranted metaweighing (though I've seen it done well only a handful of times), link weighing, and SV/Extinction framing.

- Saying the words "strength/clarity of link/impact" is not weighing :(

- "try or die" is not comparative weighing. I think it's a massive logical fallacy the debate community partakes in.

Assorted things

- If both teams want to skip cross/grand cross and use it as flex prep, I'm cool with that. Negotiate that yourselves though.

- Read content warnings on graphic args, though I'm more open to no content warnings non-graphic but potentially triggering args like human trafficking (will evaluate CW theory though). Google forms are ideal, but give adequate time for opt-out no matter how you do it.

Speaks

-Speaks are inherently subjective and somewhat biased-- I will evaluate speaks strictly based on the quality of args given in your speech.

-There are 4 ways your speaks get dropped: 1) Arriving late to round (unless you have a legitimate reason/accessibility concern), 2) Being slow to produce evidence or calling for excessive amounts of cards, 3) Stealing prep time, 4) Saying or doing anything that is excessively rude or problematic.

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

How tech am I? Here are some arguments and how I'd evaluate them.

- Climate change fake/good: While obviously untrue, I would vote on it as turn/defense. However, my threshold for frontlines would be low, so it likely isn't a super strategic choice.

- Election Args/[politician] bad: Would 100% vote on it-- run whatever so long as it isn't offensive

- Racism/sexism/homophobia good: Nope.

- Economic Growth Bad (DeDev): Would 100% vote on this.

- Tricks: Nope.

- Impacts to animal/plants: I would love the chance to vote on this with a framework.

Joshua Enebo The Blake School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 4:36 AM CDT

Blake '21, UChicago '25

I did PF on the national circuit for 3 years, and now am an assistant coach at The Blake School in Minneapolis.

Tl;dr

- I flow.

- Tech>truth.

- Please read paraphrasing theory in rounds where the opponents are paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is an awful practice, evidence is VERY important to me, and I am happy to use the ballot to punish bad ethics in round.

- Send speech docs before each speech in which cards will be read.

- All kinds of speed are fine, spreading too as long as you are not paraphrasing.

- 2nd rebuttal must frontline, defense isn't sticky, and if I'm something is going to be mentioned on my ballot, it must be in both back half speeches.

- Please weigh.

- I will let your opponents take prep for as long as it takes for you to send your doc or cards without it counting towards their 3 minutes, so send docs pls and send them fast.

- The following people have shaped how I view debate: Ale Perri (hi Ale), Christian Vasquez, Bryce Piotrowski, Darren Chang, Ellie Singer, and Shane Stafford.

- Please add both jenebo21@gmail.com AND blakedebatedocs@googlegroups.com (THIS IS A NEW DOMAIN, FOR THOSE WHO ALREADY HAD BLAKEDOCS SAVED) to the email chain.

- Feel free to contact me after the round (on Facebook preferably, or email if you must) if you have questions or need anything from me.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

General Paradigm

Rules

I will time speeches and prep, though you are encouraged to do the same. I will enforce excessive and flagrant intentional violations of speech time rules with the ballot, if necessary. In most cases, this is not needed recourse, and I will simply stop flowing once the time has elapsed.

Speeches

Roadmaps: In most PF rounds, roadmaps aren't necessary, just tell me where you are starting and signpost. If there are more than 2 sheets, then I will ask for a roadmap.

The Split: 2nd rebuttal must frontline; turns and defense. Any arguments dropped by the second rebuttal are considered dropped in the round.

The Back Half: If I am going to vote on it, or in any way going to be apart of my RFD (all offense or defense in the round), it needs to be both in the summary and the final focus. Weighing needs to start in summary, and final focus should be writing my ballot for me. See below for a caveat.

Sticky Defense: In almost all scenarios, defense is not sticky. It is completely incoherent to me that the first summary does not need to extend defense on contentions that the second summary might go for. However, the sole exception to this will be if a team does not frontline to any arguments on a contention in the second rebuttal. The first summary can consider that contention kicked. This is already pretty solidified as a norm, and allows second speaking teams to kick arguments without literally saying “there is no offense on Contention X.” An extension of this contention, that was clearly kicked in second rebuttal, by the second summary will allow the first final to extend defense from the first rebuttal on that contention specifically.

Speed: I am comfortable with all speeds in PF. More often than not, clarity matters more than WPM. I know debaters who speak at 400+ WPM, and I can understand every word. Likewise, I know debaters who don't speak fast but are still super unclear. I will say clear if I can’t follow. You can spread IF you are doing it like it is done in policy (spreading long cards, not a bunch of paraphrased garbage, slow down on tags/authors, sending out a speech doc is a must). If you spread AND paraphrase, however, your chances of winning points of clash immediately plummet.

Speech docs: Please send speech docs with cut cards. This vastly decreases the amount of wasted time in rounds sending various individual cards at different times.

Weighing: The team that wins the weighing debate is nearly always winning the round. I start every RFD with an evaluation of the weighing debate, and it frequently is what controls the direction of my ballot. Please start weighing as early as possible, it will help you make smart strategic decisions without making the round a total mess. I would highly encourage you to go for less and weigh more.

Collapse: Please collapse. I don't want to sift through a flow with tons of tags and zero warrants or weighing. Pick an argument to go for, and weigh that argument. That is the easiest way to pick up my ballot. Debate isn't a scoreboard, winning 3 arguments doesn't mean you get my ballot if your opponent only wins 1 argument.

Abusive Delinks: I cannot believe I have to make this a part of my paradigm, but no delinks or non-uniques on yourself to get out of turn offense. This does not mean you cannot bite defense read, or make new frontline responses to turns, rather it means you cannot overtly contradict your initial arguments with a piece of defense your opponents did not read to get out of offense they read. This applies in situations as clear cut as the aff saying X, the neg responding with X is actually bad, and the aff responds with “not X.” This almost never happens, but is astonishingly abusive when it is attempted.

Framework: If the 1st constructive introduces framework, the 2nd constructive probably should respond to it, or make arguments as to why they get responses later in the round. I don't know where I stand on this technically yet, but this is where I am leaning now. In general, if the 1st constructive introduces framework and the 2nd constructive drops it, I think its ok for the first rebuttal to call it conceded unless otherwise argued.

Advocacies/T: In general, I will evaluate the flow without prejudice on what ground the aff or neg claims to have. Because the neg doesn't get a counter plan in PF, the aff advocacy does not block the neg out of ground. Both the aff and neg can make arguments about what the aff would most likely look at, and should garner advantages and disadvantages based off of those interpretations. I will evaluate whose is more likely to be correct and go from there. An example would be the neg could still read a Russia provocation negative on the NATO topic (Septober 2021) even if the aff does not read a troop deployment advocacy for their advantages unless it is argued that troop deployment is not a feasible implementation of the aff. Alternatively, if the neg can get a CP then I suppose the aff can get an advocacy. Either way works.

Safety issues: I will be quick to drop debaters and arguments that are any -ism, and I won't listen to arguments like racism, sexism, death, patriarchy (etc) good. The space first and foremost needs to be safe to participate in.

Housekeeping: I take the important parts of the debate incredibly seriously, but there are aspects that I find frivolously pretentious. Be nice and respectful, but keep it somewhat light and casual if you can! Debate is supposed to be at least somewhat fun, so lets treat it as such. I don't care what you what you wear, where you sit, if you swear (sometimes a few F-bombs can make an exceedingly boring debate just a little less so!), if you do the flip or enter the room before im there, etc.

Evidence

Disclaimer: I like cut cards and quality evidence, I hate paraphrasing. This section is going to seem cranky, but I don't mind well-warranted analytics. I just hate paraphrasing. Evidence is always better than an analytic, but if you introduce an argument as an analytic, I won't mind and will evaluate it as such. But if your opponents have evidence, you will likely lose that clash point.

Bottom line: Evidence is the backbone of the activity. I do not fancy fast paced lying as a debate format. Arguments about evidence preference are very good in front of me, and I will certainly call for cards if docs are not already sent. Evidence quality is exceedingly important, and I will have no qualms dropping teams for awful evidence. This applies regardless of if you cut cards or paraphrase, because cutting cards doesn't make you immune to lying about it.

Paraphrasing: The single worst somewhat prevelant practice in PF debate today is paraphrasing. Luckily, it seems on the decline! Regardless, it is bad for the quality of debate, it is bad for all of its educational benefits, and it ruins fairness. Please cut cards, it is not difficult to learn. If you insist on making me upset and paraphrasing, keep the following in mind:

1. You must have a cut card that you paraphrased from. It is an NSDA rule now.

2. Your opponents do not need to take prep to s ort through your PDFs, and if you can’t quickly produce the evidence and where you paraphrased it from, I'm crossing the argument off my flow. I have very little tolerance for long, paraphrased evidence exchanges where you claim to have correctly paraphrased 100 page PDFs and expect your opponents to be able to check against your bad evidence with the allotted prep time.

3. Paraphrasing does not let you off the hook for not reading a warrant. 40 authors in 1st rebuttal by spreading tag blips and paraphrasing authors to make it faster is not acceptable and your speaks will tank.

4. If you misrepresent a card while paraphrasing, not only is that bad in a vacuum, but I will give you the L25. If you realize its badly represented OR you can’t find it when asked and you make the argument to "just evaluate as an analytic," I will also give an L25. If you introduce the evidence, you have to be able to defend it.

5. Don’t be mad at me if you get bad speaks. There is no longer world in which someone who paraphrases, even if they give the perfect speech gets above a 28.5 in front of me. I used to be more forgiving on this, but no longer.

Producing evidence: If reading the header "paraphrasing" meant you skipped over that part of my paradigm, I will reiterate something that is important regardless of how you introduce the evidence. If you can’t produce a card upon being asked for it within reasonable time frame given the network or technical context, your speaks will tank.

Evidence Preference: Even if not a full shell, arguments that I should prefer cut cards over paraphrased cards at the clash points are going to work in front of me.

Author Cites: This is yet another thing I should not need to put in my paradigm. You need to cite the author you are reading in speech for it to be counted as evidence as opposed to an analytic. If you read something without citing an author, I will flow it as an analytic and if your opponents call for that piece of evidence, and you hand it to them without citing it in the round, I am dropping you. It is blatant plagiarism and extremely unethical. In an educational activity, this should be exceedingly obvious.

Progressive Paradigm

Debate is good: Deep in my bones, I believe that debate is good. It may presently be flawed, but I believe the activity has value and can be transformative in the best possible way. Arguments that say debate is bad and should be destroyed entirely (often this is the conclusion of non-topical pessimistic arguments, killjoy, etc) will be evaluated but my biases towards the activity being good WILL impact the decision. This does not make them unwinnable, but probably not strategic to read.

Disclaimer: I'm receptive to all arguments, including progressive ones in the debate space, but they have been getting very low quality recently. I worry about the long-term impact about some of these in the activity. I beg of you, think about the model you are advocating for, and think about if its sincerely going to make the space better for the people growing up in it. The impact you can leave on the activity could be positive or negative and will outlast your time as a debater.

Theory

CI/Reasonability: I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise, but that doesn't really mean much if you read the rest of this section. I am going to evaluate the flow, so if you read theory arguments that I won't intervene against, I am going to evaluate the flow normally.

RVIs: I generally think no-RVIs. The exception to this is an RVI on an IVI.

IVIs: These are really bad for debate. If there is a rules claim to be made, make it a theory shell. If there is a safety issue, then stop the round. Almost all of the time, IVIs are vague whines spammed off in the span of 4 seconds without any explanation. This proliferation is nearly existential for the activity, and it needs to stop. My threshold for responses to these is near zero.

Frivolity: I have no problem intervening against frivolous theory (i.e. shoe theory), so if you run theory in front of me, please believe that its actually educational for the activity. This does include spikes and tricks. I don't like them, please don't run them. If the theory is frivolous, and I reserve the right to determine that, I won't vote on it no matter the breakdown of the round. I won't vote for auto-30 speaker point arguments. It has become more common these days to read WPM interpretations (i.e. cannot be more than 250 WPM). I think these are pretty stupid, to be entirely honest. It is not clear to me why disclosure doesn't solve or why being a more efficient speaker doesn't solve. Not saying I wouldn't vote for it in the right round, but its probably more an uphill battle in front of me than most.

Introduction: Theory needs to be read in the speech following the violation. Out of round violations should be read in constructive.

Paraphrasing is bad: I will vote on paraphrasing bad most of the time, as long as there’s some offense on the shell. I will NEVER vote on paraphrasing good, I don't care how mad that may make you to hear, I just won't do it. If you introduce cut cards bad or paraphrasing good as a new off (like before a paraphrasing bad shell) I will instantly drop you. That said, you can win enough defense on a paraphrasing shell to make it not a voter. Paraphrasing theory is the exception to the disclaimers outlined above, I think paraphrasing should be punished in round and am happy to vote on it.

Disclosure is good: Disclosure is good, but how you disclose matters. These days I prefer open source disclosure, where tags, cites, and highlights are all included. "Open source" with no highlights or tags, where teams put up walls of unformatted text and expect people to do precisely anything with it, is a huge pet peeve of mine and interps that punish teams that do this will be received favorably. I have decided the activity should probably start moving in the direction of disclosing rebuttal evidence as well, so do with that what you may. I will listen to reasons why that is bad, though I struggle to see the conceptual difference between a link turn and a case link from a disclosure perspective. I used to feel less strongly about disclosure than paraphrasing but now I feel about as strongly. We should be disclosing, and not doing so should absolutely cost you ballots.

Trigger warnings: I think trigger warnings in PF are usually bad, and usually run on arguments that don’t need to be trigger warned which just suppresses voices and arguments in the activity. You’ll find Elizabeth Terveen’s paradigm has a good section on this that I generally agree on. You can go for the theory, but my threshold for responses will be in accordance with that belief typically. Obviously, egregiously graphic descriptions are an exception to this general belief, but they are almost never run in PF. The mention of something is not a good enough reason for a trigger warning.

Kritiks

General disposition: I am somewhat comfortable evaluating most kritikal arguments, although I’m not as experienced with them as I am with others. I will be able to flow it and vote on it as long as you explain it well. I am quite comfortable with capitalism, security, and fem IR.

Disclaimer: Blake 2021 made me think about this part of my paradigm a lot, and I think the activity is just going through growing pains that are necessary, but some of these debates were really bad. The proliferation of identity, pomo inspired kritiks that vaguely ask the judge to vote for a team based on an identity and nothing else is not good. Moreover, methods that advocate collapsing the activity are unlikely to be well received. In any case, please articulate exactly what my ballot does or what specifically I am supposed to be doing to improve the activity. This means implicating responses or arguments onto the FW debate, or the ROTB.

“Pre-fiat”: No one thinks fiat is real, so let’s be more specific about how we label arguments and discourse. Make comparisons as to why your discourse or type of education is more important than theirs, this is not done by slapping the label "pre-fiat" onto an argument.’

Discourse: I am pretty skeptical that discourse shapes reality. If you go for this, you best have excellent evidence and good explanations.

Phil:In the 24-25 season there has been a massive increase in the number of circuit LD phil arguments. Note that my bar for garnering offense is probably higher than it normally is, mostly because I think these arguments as a matter of truth are probably not very useful in debate and almost never is solvency articulated. I have voted on them, probably will again, but I won't be thrilled and would prefer not to.

Speaks

I will probably give around a 27-28 in most rounds. I guess I give lower speaks than most PF judges, so I’ll clarify. 27-28 is middling to me with various degrees within that. 26-27 is bad, not always for ethical reasons. Below a 26 is an ethical issue. If you get above a 29 from me you should be very happy because I never give speaks that high almost ever. I will not give a 30, there are no perfect debaters.

David Engstrom Gunn Sr High School 7 rounds

Will Erard Flower Mound High School 4 rounds

Emma Fritz Trinity Preparatory School 4 rounds

Ariel Gabay Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 17, 2024 at 9:58 AM CDT

Ariel Gabay

I debate at the University of Kentucky, I debated at, and I now coach at Niles North High School.

Emails

arielgabay1710@gmail.com

devanemdebate@gmail.com

Procedure

I believe that technical execution overdetermines everything. I will try my absolute hardest to be non-interventionist and minimize it, in any regard, to as close to zero as I can. That said, in some debates, that's impossible, and if that is the case, I will let debaters know why I intervened, but will try to optimize that intervention towards what I believe is most fair.

I have absolutely zero preference for what argument you go for; I think that generally the more I debate, the less ideological I think I have become. Debaters work hard and are passionate about different things, you should let rip whatever you feel best increases the chances of you winning, nothing is off the table. As long as it results in more technical proficiency than your opponents, you will win.

This also means that if you cannot beat presumptively silly arguments, you deserve to lose.

Most paradigms feel like a lot of truisms, I am sure almost everyone agrees that technical debating matters. For me, what is most helpful is to understand how judges decide. I do not believe any judge is perfect. In response to the inevitable mistakes judges might make, I will try and be maximally transparent about both how I come to decisions and how I thought about arguments; you are more than welcome to post-round. With that caveat, here is my process:

I flow straight down on excel, I begin during the 1AC, no one has ever presented a persuasive argument not to do so.

I might peek at docs, but certainly not during speeches, and more so out of curiosity.

I start my decision where I am instructed to start and filter the rest of the arguments based on the resolution of that argument. The way to game this is that debaters must flag the arguments they want me to start on. If this is not done, I will be left to my own devices, where I will try and decide which issues I believe are most important, which, if you are comfortable with me doing that, great, but does inherently result in some judge intervention, which I detest. In response to having to intervene, I will always attempt to disclose where I started and why.

I will then type out as much as possible to figure out the implication of each argument based on the debater's articulation. This is because I believe that the decisions I respect the most, even if I disagree with them, are the ones that are thorough and well thought out. Given the amount of work that goes into debating, I will try and be thorough.

Everything should be contested. This includes, BUT is not limited to, whether cards can or cannot be inserted, or if an argument is 'new.' Absent instruction, I will default to the least intervention. For example, if a team inserts a card and the other team doesn't say that you cannot do that, I will assume that you can insert evidence.

Lastly, something I have noticed that I struggle with is voting on arguments that are not implicated if I do not understand them, even if it is a technical crush, an argument can be conceded, therefore true, but absent an explanation of it I sometimes struggle to understand what it means and the end-result might be a decision that you are not happy with! The really easy solution to this is just judge instruction, which also overcomes everything else I have said that might result in a decision you are not happy with.

The things that have always resulted in me providing the higher speaker points are debaters who know what they are talking about, are funny, and care about the activity.

Other

Please let me know if you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about Kentucky. Do not hesitate to reach out, I almost always have Kentucky debate stickers in my backpack.

Don't be jerks. I never thought it was affectively persuasive. I don't think anyone does, I don't think belittling your opponents has ever resulted in me voting for you.

Last big thing, I understand that at the TOC it might be people's last debates, and some simply do not want to hear full decisions. If that is the case, let me know, I won't take offense to it.

Priya Garcia Leland High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 24, 2024 at 5:56 AM PDT

I coach a full team, but I have more experience in Parli and IEs. I do not care about the economy so try not to use arguments that uphold the economy over, say, human lives. Please call me "judge" or "Ms. Garcia." Do not call me by my first name.

I will permit post-round questions but if folks are being disrespectful, I reserve the right to leave.

Try to win fair and square. Evidence challenges don't work on me.

World Schools: I follow the rubric.

Public Forum: I am a speech coach and this should be important to you. Rhetoric > Evidence Dumping, but I will be flowing and taking notes. Don't expect the sheer existence of your cards to win the round for you. You need to explain and analyze how the card bolsters your side of the argument. It would be impossible for me to vote for you, even if you win every argument on the "flow," if you are an incoherent speaker, so make sure to speak slow and clearly. I'm cool with paraphrasing; in fact, I encourage it. You should probably treat me like how you would treat a standard flay, or even a lay judge taking decent flows. No cussing please. I care about morality; your best bet to winning me over is on framework. Once again, I do not care about the economy. If you are blatantly rude or mean to your opponent (verbally insult them, roll your eyes at them, interrupt them during cross unnecessarily, etc.) you will lose my vote.You (the competitors) may reserve the right to share or not share the doc chain with me. I will not penalize you if your opponents choose to share the doc chain with me and you don't, or visa versa.The only Theory shell I know enough about to follow is Topicality. Try not to run any other types of Theory on me. If I'm your judge for the first few prelims, spend some time going over the basics and definitions of the resolution. After that though, try to stick to what makes your case unique.

Policy: I am looking for debaters who don't talk down to me while still clearly hashing out their arguments and plans. I have not and never will vote for disclosure theory. Disclosure is uneducational. If you are a good debater, you won't need the crutch of knowing your opponents' strategies before the round.

-Basic Paradigm: speaking skills > policymaker >stock issues

-Highly value: cx, poise, don't interrupt people, eloquent delivery

-Less Experienced with: Theory, conditional neg positions, Kritiks

Parliamentary: I honestly don't care as much about your evidence. The important thing is that your contentions be centered around common knowledge and that they are cleverly argued. Logic > evidence dumping. The only theory shell I will consider is Topicality. Other theory shells are not educational and defeat the purpose of parliamentary debate.

LD: be creative but not everything leads to nuclear war. I value rhetoric over evidence-dumping. Win me over on framework and you're golden:)

Interpretation: storytelling is most important to me, clearly defined characters are also important, please no screaming, "don't walk through your refrigerator," blocking should be clean.

Platform: puns are encouraged. Visual aids should complement your performance, not distract from it.

Spontaneous: make sure to clearly name the chosen topic multiple times and signpost frequently

Congress: proper parliamentary procedure is encouraged, don't disagree with the PO, I will notice if a particular school/team is prioritizing their own or ignoring recency

Jules Gibson Pine View School 4 rounds

Zachary Ginsberg The Trinity School 4 rounds

Eli Glickman College Prep 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 25, 2024 at 5:54 PM EDT

I am a fourth year at UC Berkeley and an assistant debate coach for College Prep. I debated for Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS in high school.

Please add eli.glickman@berkeley.edu AND collegepreppf@gmail.com to the email chain, and label the chain clearly; for example, “TOC R1F1 Email Chain Bethesda-Chevy Chase GT v. AandM Consolidated DS.”

TL;DR

I am tech over truth. You can read any argument in front of me, provided it’s warranted. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half. Good comparative analysis and creative weighing are the best ways to win my ballot.

———PART I: SPEECHES———

Signposting:

Teams that do not signpost will not do well in front of me. If I cannot follow your arguments, I will not flow them properly.

Cross:

I might listen but I won't vote off or remember anything said here unless it's in a speech. Rudeness and hostility are unpleasant, and I will ding your speaks if you do not behave professionally in cross. Teams may skip GCX, if they want. If you agree to skip GCX, both teams get 1 additional minute of prep.

Rebuttal:

Read as much offense as you want, but you should implicate all offense well on the line-by-line. Second rebuttal must frontline defense and turns, but blippy defense from the first rebuttal doesn’t all need to be answered in this speech.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky, and it should be extended in summary. I will only evaluate new turns or defense in summary if they are made in response to new implications from the other team.

Final Focus:

First final can do new weighing but no new implications of turns, nor can the first final make new implications for anything else, unless responding to new implications or turns from the second summary. Second final cannot do new weighing or make new implications. Final focus is a really good time to slow down and talk big picture.

———PART II: TECHNICAL THINGS———

Voting:

I default to util. If there's no offense, I presume to the first speaking team. I will always disclose after the round.

Evidence:

Paraphrasing is fine if it is done ethically. Smart analytics help debaters grow as critical thinkers, which is the purpose of this activity. Well-warranted arguments trump poorly warranted cards. There are, however, two evidence rules you must follow. First, you must have cut cards, and you must send cut cards in the email chain promptly after your opponent requests them. Second, I will not tolerate misconstruction of evidence. If you misconstrue evidence, I will give you very low speaks, and I reserve the right to drop you, depending on the severity of the misconstruction.

Email Chains:

I require an email chain for every round, so evidence exchange is faster and more efficient. If you are spreading or reading any progressive arguments, you must send a doc before you begin. You should not have any third-party email trackers activated; if you do, I will tank your speaks.

Prep Time:

Don't steal prep or I will steal your speaks. Feel free to take prep whenever, and flex prep is fine too.

Speech Times:

These are non-negotiable. I stop flowing after the time ends, and I reserve the right to scream "TIME" if you begin to go over. Cross ends at 3 minutes sharp. If you’re in the middle of a sentence, finish it quickly.

Speed:

I can follow speed (300wpm+), but be clear. If I can't understand what you're saying that means I can't flow it. Speed is good in the first half and bad in the second half, collapse strategically, and don't go for everything. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop you, it's your fault. I repeat, slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Speaks:

Clarity and strategy determine your speaks. I disclose speaks as well, just ask.

Postrounding:

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

Trigger Warnings:

I do not require trigger warnings. I will not reward including them, nor will I penalize excluding them. This is informed by my personal views on trigger warnings (see Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind). I will never opt out of an argument. I will not hack for trigger warning good theory, and I am open to trigger warning bad arguments (though I will not hack for these either).

———PART III: PROGRESSIVE DEBATE———

You do not need to ask your opponent if they are comfortable with theory. “I don't know how to respond” is not a sufficient response. Don’t debate in varsity if you can’t handle varsity arguments.

Preferences:

Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1

Kritik - 3

Tricks - 3

High Theory - 4

Non-T Kritik - 5 (Strike)

Performance - 5 (Strike)

Theory:

I think frivolous theory is bad. I'll evaluate it, but I have a lower threshold for responses the more frivolous the shell. Poorly executed theory will result in low speaks. If you've never run theory before, and feel inclined to do so, I'm happy to give comments and help as much as I can.I default to competing interps and yes RVIs. I believe that winning no RVIs applies to the entire theory layer unless your warrants are specific to a shell, C/I, etc. Unless I am evaluating the theory debate on reasonability you must read a counterinterp; if you do not all of your responses are inherently defensive because your opponents are the only team providing me with a 'good' model of debate.

Theory must be read immediately after the violation. You must extend your shells in rebuttal, and you must frontline your opponent’s shell(s) immediately after they read it.

Kritiks:

I ran Ks a few times, however, I am not a great judge for these rounds. I'm fairly comfortable with biopower, security, cap, and imperialism.

Tricks:

These are pretty stupid but go for them if you want to.

Everything Else:

Framework, soft-left Ks, CPs, and DAs are fine.

TKO:

If your opponent has no path to the ballot, such as conceded theory shell or your opponents reading a counterinterp that they do not meet themselves, you may call a TKO. If your TKO is valid, you win with 30 speaks, however, if your opponents did have a path to the ballot you will lose with very low speaks.

Kunal Goel Flower Mound High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 15, 2024 at 6:11 AM PDT

kunal.goel678@gmail.com add me to the email chain

lynbrook '23, 7 yrs of pf

2019 middle school toc double octafinalist and 15th overall speaker

TLDR -- i evaluate weighing first then look for which team has the best link into the weighing. go fast, be clear, be confident. read strategic offense in case, read lots of smart responses in rebuttal. read weighed turns. my favorite debates have fast backhalf speeches off flows with lots of analysis at the warrant level and lots of weighing. link comparison/weighing makes my soul happy. extend arguments in backhalf speeches.

weighing -- weigh. it's the first thing i look at on my flow. if you win weighing its very likely you will win the round. weighing is comparative. weighing is not you telling me "my impact outweighs on magnitude because 100 million people die."

regular impact calculus (scope, magnitude, timeframe, probability) is just ok weighing, it's appreciated, but if you want to put yourself in the best position to win: prereqs, link-ins, short-circuits. Making specific analysis as to how your link or impact interacts w theirs PLUS additional analysis on why to prefer your link on timeframe/scope of solvency/historical precedent etc, etc is a surefire way to win the weighing debate, and the round.

respond to the other team's weighing, line by line-ing your oppenents weighing efficiently and effectively can essentially take them out of the round

signposting -- signpost clearly. number your responses in rebuttal and tell me which responses you're responding to in summary. don't over signpost, i dont need a reexplanation of their case or response

off time roadmaps don't need to be more than 10 words, tell me which side of the flow you're starting on, if it's a weird order then tell me that. otherwise, don't tell me "im going to be extending, then frontlining, then weighing."

tech>truth -- i will vote for any argument, but i will not vote for arguments without warrants or arguments that are blatantly _ist

extensions -- you need to extend offense in both backhalf speeches in order for me to vote for you in the debate round

i do care about extensions, they don't need to be perfect, but they need to do at least the bare minimum for me to vote for you (which may seem like a lot). extensions need to have the topical link, internal link, and impact scenario. a 5 second one sentence blip is NOT an extension. I will presume if neither team extends their arguments in final. I presume 1st unless warrants to presume someway else are made in round.

rebuttals -- frontline everything in 2nd rebuttal, defense is not sticky, ill eval DA's in 2nd rebuttal but maybe don't go overboard w them. weigh your turns, historicity, uniqueness, short circuit analysis is always great

theory/k/tricks -- i default no rvi's and CI's > reasonability

i will evaluate k's, i am significantly worse at evaluating K debate than substance

tricks: i'd rather you read substance. i'll evaluate tricks but likely the worst of all arguments unless i get clear implications and extensions of them in the backhalf speeches

BE KIND AND HAVE FUN, debate is a game and an educational activity, don't take yourself too seriously and don't be mean, please

Yihua Gong Dougherty Valley High School 7 rounds

Brixz Gonzaba Davidson Academy Online 7 rounds

Rinki Goswami Saratoga HS 4 rounds

Cecilia Granda-Scott Southlake Carroll 7 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 4:11 AM EDT

Sunvite 2025: *have very little topic knowledge about Somaliland take it easy on me*

Hello! I’m a third-year out, debated in PF for Ransom Everglades for 3 years on the nat circuit. Now I coach and do parli in college. (If you're a senior and going to college in the Northeast ask me about parli!)

if there is anything I can do to accommodate you before the round or you have any questions about anything after the round, reach out on Messenger (Cecilia Granda-Scott) or email me.

PLEASE PREFLOW BEFORE THE ROUND

TLDR:

tech judge, all standard rules apply. My email is cecidebate@gmail.com for the chain.

my face is very expressive – i do think that if i make a face you should consider that in how you move forward

Safety > everything else. Run trigger warnings with opt-outs for any argument that could possibly be triggering. I will not evaluate responses as to why trigger warnings are bad.

If you say “time will begin on my first word, time begins in 3-2-1, time will start now, first an off-time roadmap” I will internally cry. And then I will think about the fact that you didn’t read or listen to my paradigm, which will probably make me miss the first 7 seconds of your speech.

Card names aren’t warrants. If someone asks you a question in cross, saying “oh well our Smith card says this” is not an answer to WHY or HOW it happens. Similarly, please extend your argument, and don’t just “extend Jones”. I don’t flow card names, so I literally will not know what evidence you’re referring to.

If you are planning on reading/hitting a progressive argument, please go down to that specific section below.

Please don’t call for endless pieces of evidence, it’s annoying. Prep time is 3 minutes.

More specific things in round that will make me happy:

Past 230-ish words per minute I’ll need a speech doc. I hate reading docs and tbh would vastly prefer to have a non-doc round but I have come to understand that nobody listens when I say this so send me the doc I suppose. Also: I promise that my comprehension really is slower than people think it is so stay safe and send it

signpost signpost signpost

"The flow is a toolbox not a map" is the best piece of debate knowledge I ever learned and I think PF has largely lost backhalf strategy recently so if you do interesting smart things I will reward you

How I look at a round:

Whichever argument has been ruled the most important in the round, I go there first. If you won it, you win! If no one did, then I go to the next important argument, and so forth.

Please weigh :) I love weighing. I love smart weighing. I love comparative weighing. Pre-reqs and short circuits are awesome. Weighing makes me think you are smart and makes my job easier. You probably don’t want to let me unilaterally decide which argument is more important - because it might not be yours!

Speech Stuff:

Yes, you have to frontline any arguments you are going for. And turns. And weighing.

Collapsing is strategic. You should collapse. If you’re extending 3 arguments in final focus…why? Quality over quantity.

You need to extend your entire warrant, link, and impact for me to vote on an argument. This applies to turns too. If a turn does not have an impact, then it is not something I can vote on! (You don’t have to read an impact in rebuttal as long as you co-opt and extend your opponents’ impact in summary). Everything in final focus needs to be in summary. If you say something new in final focus, I will laugh at you for wasting time in your speech on something I will not evaluate. I especially hate this if you do it in 2nd final focus.

The best final focuses are the ones that slow down a bit and go bigger picture. After listening to it, I should be able to cast my ballot right there and repeat your final word for word as my RFD.

Progressive:

don't put your kids in varsity if they cannot handle varsity arguments. aka - i'm not going to evaluate "oh well i don't know how to respond to this". it's okay if you haven't learned prog and don't know how to respond, i don't need super formal responses, just try to make logical analysis; but i'm not going to punish the team who initiated a prog argument because of YOUR lack of knowledge (if you would like to learn about theory, you can ask me after the round I also went to a traditional school and had to teach myself)

I dislike reading friv prog on novices or to get out of debating SV. just be good at debate and beat your opponents lol

Disclosure/paraphrasing – I cut cards and disclosed. I don’t actually care super much about either of these norms (I actually won 3 disclosure rounds my senior year before we got lazy and didn’t want to have more theory rounds). So like, go have fun, but I am not a theory hack. I won’t vote for:

first-3-last-3 disclosure because that is fake disclosure and stupid
Round reports, I think this new norm is wild and silly

I learned the basics of Ks and hit a couple in my career, now have coached/judged several more, but not super well versed in literature (unless its fem). Just explain clearly, and know that if you're having a super complicated K round you are subjecting yourself to my potential inability to properly evaluate it. With that:

Identity/performances/talking about the debate space/explaining why the topic is bad = that’s all good.
If you run ‘dadaism’ or ‘linguistics’ I will be upset that you have made me listen to that for 45 minutes, and I’ll be extra receptive to reasons why progressive arguments are bad for the debate space; you will definitely not get fantastic speaks even if I begrudgingly vote for you because you won the round.

I hate reading Ks and just spreading your opponents out of the round. Please don’t make K rounds even harder to keep up with in terms of my ability to judge + I’m hesitant to believe you’re actually educating anyone if no one can understand you.

when RESPONDING to prog: i've found that evidence ethics are super bad here. It makes me annoyed when you miscontrue critical literature and read something that your authors would disagree with. Don't do it

Trix are for kids. If I hear the words “Roko’s Basilisk” I will literally stop the round and submit my ballot right there so I can walk away and think about the life choices that have led me here.

Frameworks:

You need warrants as to why I should vote under the framework.
I’m down with pre-fiat stuff (aka you just reading this argument is good) but you have to actually tell me why reading it is good and extend that as a reason to vote for you independent of the substance layer of the round
Being forced to respond in second constructive is stupid. If your opponents say you do, just respond with “lol no I don’t” and you’re good.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR EXTINCTION FRAMING AS PREFIAT OFFENSE.

Crossfire:

Obviously, I’m not going to flow it. With that, I had lots of fun in crossfire as a debater. Be your snarkiest self and make me laugh! Some things:

I know the difference between sarcasm and being mean. Be mean and your speaks will reflect that.
My threshold for behavior in crossfire changes depending on both gender and age. For example: if you are a senior boy, and you’re cracking jokes against a sophomore girl, I probably won’t think you’re as funny as you think you are.
If you bring up something in grand that was not in your summary, I will laugh at you for thinking that I will evaluate it in final focus. If your opponent does this and you call them out for it, I will think you’re cool.

Speaks:

Speaks are fake, you’ll all get good ones.

If you are racist/sexist/homophobic etc I WILL give you terrible speaks. Every judge says this but I don’t think it’s enforced enough. I will actually enforce this rule.

David Griffith Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 3:13 PM EDT

David Griffith

Last substantively updated on 2/25/25---added "methodology" section that tries to describe how I judge and decide debates.

Coach at the University of Kentucky and New Trier High School. I judge a lot of debates. I debated nationally for 8 years in high school (Oak Park-River Forest) and college (Kentucky).

Emails for Email Chains:

High School: griffithd2002@gmail.com, ntpolicydebate@gmail.com

College: griffithd2002@gmail.com, debatedocs@googlegroups.com, ukydebate@gmail.com

I. Non-Negotiable:

The neg gets conditionality---never voting on condo. It can be double-dropped for all I care. If you need an escape hatch, I will happily vote on no neg fiat (this is not a joke) or any other theory arguments, just not this one.

II. Judging Methodology:

a. Starting Points.

I try to minimize intervention where possible, but no judge is a blank slate. I can't fairly adjudicate condo debates, so I don't want to judge them. Relatedly, some of my biases matter more than others. This section tries to describe my biases' relationship the the outcome of a given debate. The other sections set those biases out in clearer terms.

I encourage debaters to ask as may questions as they want about the decision or anything else.

I try to write out my RFD in full and submit it on Tabroom because I have trouble organizing my thoughts otherwise. I spend the majority of decision time typing notes on how I resolved each important question before cohering those notes into a complete RFD.

I flow every speech on my laptop. The only time my flow will not take up my entire screen is when I paste the plan text and any counterplan texts from the speech doc into my Excel sheet as they are read. I prefer to line arguments up on my flow rather than going straight down, but this doesn't always work.

I am not a fan of "any risk" logic when taken to its logical endpoint. This means I often evaluate links to arguments more stringently than other judges and am more willing than many to zero arguments if there isn't one. I am particularly more willing than most to abandon offense/defense in debates that do not center on predicting the consequences of the plan. If I'm tasked with deciding whether reading a certain argument was violent, for example, I am more likely to simply conclude "yes" or "no" than to start with the impacts to either of those answers being true. The same is true to a lesser extent for permutations.

My default presumption is that the aff must meet each stock issue, and the neg only debates the desirability of the plan. This makes me better than average for inherency, solvency, and other case-based neg strategies, and worse than average for philosophically competitive Ks, any arguments about fiat, and most K affs.

Plan desirability is not assumed but must be demonstrated, because the aff has the burden of proof. This belief can make me seem a bit "truthier" than some in that I will not assign risk to something without knowing where that risk comes from. This belief is very strongly held because I do not understand the alternative.

b. Deciding the Debate & Judge Intervention.

I start deciding by looking at the issues flagged by the 2NR and 2AR as important. I usually have some feeling about which side is winning during and after every debate, so where I start depends on that feeling. That feeling is informed by whose argument is presented more persuasively, how much the 2NR/2AR jump up and down about a particular issue, dropped arguments, and a variety of other things that can't be explained any better than when a spectator walks out of a debate declaring that it was a crush.

I will never evaluate more than I have to. For example, if the aff convincingly wins a no impact argument at the top of the 2AR, so much so that the case outweighs the DA, evaluating subsequent no link/internal link defense arguments is a waste of time, and I will never get that far. I do not like creating extra work for myself if I don't have to. This means I am a slightly faster judge than average.

If either final rebuttal fails to set out the most important issues at some point, I will trust my intuition, which is guided by time allocation, verbiage, and subjective judgment of what argument I thought was best throughout the debate.

If I believe an argument to be new in the 2AR, I will strike it from my flow. If debaters question the legitimacy of arguments introduced in other rebuttals, I will usually favor striking the argument but not always. What counts as new is up for debate.

Intervention is forced when competing claims cannot be resolved by reading my flow. How I intervene tends to favor teams with the clearest, best presented argument, and that is when the rest of this paradigm becomes relevant. What counts as clear and well-presented is hard to capture in precise terms, but the litmus test I normally use is whether I can explain an argument based solely on the words on my flow without looking at any evidence or adding explanation based on my own assumptions.

I do my best avoid content intervention by making sure that I can explain arguments I'm voting on after the debate is over without reading cards. If arguments are equally well-explained but nevertheless irreconcilable, only then will I begin to read evidence. That being said, you should always make and send a card doc. I read evidence to verify claims being made about it, not to enhance my understanding of the arguments in the debate. Stronger evidence is only important if it is debated well. Weaker evidence hurts you more if your storytelling isn't good.

III. Style and Presentation:

They matter a lot---sounding like you're winning is the first step to actually winning. Being organized ensures I understand your argument in its best form. Therefore, debating according to the suggestions outlined here will maximize your chances of a high quality decision after the debate.

Number arguments, signpost, and slow down---I strongly prefer debaters number arguments. Forcing me to flow straight down is the number one way to make me grumpy. I don't flow the speech doc. If you talk in paragraphs or fly through every argument at the same speed, I will miss arguments and won't feel bad about it. I will vote for pretty much anything so long as I can flow it and explain it after the round.

Label everything---off-case positions, advantages, and even individual arguments if possible. I get grumpy when the 1NC reads a bunch of off and makes everyone have a conversation before the 2AC about what everything is called.

Tell me why you win---robust judge instruction is your only hope of avoiding catastrophic judge intervention. Final rebuttals should clearly explain the implication of winning your most important arguments relative to other arguments in the debate. Doing so will result in a faster, clearer decision and better speaker points. Failing to do so will result in me taking the easy way out if possible.

Explain why technical concessions matter---I don't like it when debaters spam arguments and expect me to understand what they all mean. I have to able to explain to the other team why they needed to answer your argument in order to win. If something is dropped and important enough to jump up and down about, don't leave the explanation why to me. Do it in your speech.

Complain about new arguments---I don't like latebreaking debates. The "R" in 1NR and 1AR stands for "rebuttal." If the block makes deliberate choices informed by 2AC errors/concessions and tells me this, I am highly likely to obey 2NR judge instruction to ignore whatever the 1AR cooked up. Similarly, if asked to, I'm likely to ignore new 1NR T interpretations, CP competition arguments, or anything that the aff should get to CX the neg about. You just have to bring it up.

Don't answer incomplete arguments---the 2AC doesn't have to make solvency deficits if the 1NC doesn't have solvency arguments. Often, I consistently see 2ACs that accurately assess that a 1NC position was incomplete and then spend an inordinate amount of time on that sheet. This will make me second-guess whether the 1NC applied because it tells me that you take the argument seriously. Stop doing that.

IV. K Affs, T-USFG, and K v. K

Pick a lane and stay in it---I find that I most often vote for the team with the best developed arguments, not the one with the most. I do not judge these debates by tallying up dropped arguments. Going for too many impacts or spreading yourself too thin in the 1AR/2NR/2AR is the easiest way to lose me.

Affs should clearly depart from the status quo---in general, I would prefer that affs to have an advocacy statement identifying the specific action it believes is desirable. That action must be different from the status quo and enacted by an agent of change outside of the debate. Asking me to "endorse" something already happening or suggesting that I vote for the aff because it was educational are both likely to lose to a basic presumption 2NR. Relying on tricks to avoid this outcome (call-outs, theory, impact turns to T, etc.) will not get you very far.

Have a role for both sides, not just one---the best way to avoid intervention in framework debates is to paint a broad picture of debates under your interpretation. I generally find arguments about switch-side debate extremely persuasive. I am equally unpersuaded by the neg team that only complains about fairness and the aff team that only talks about how educational their particular aff is. I'm much more concerned with what an entire season looks like because not every debate is going to mirror the one happening in front of me. This makes me a good judge for creative counter-interpretations from the aff paired with functional limits arguments and a bad judge for any aff that says the topic will always be bad.

Explanation matters more here than in any other debate---I need to understand the implications of what you're saying. I vote neg on framework most when the aff says the topic is bad and fails to explain why that should be allowed. I vote aff most often on creative counter-interps and/or critiques of voting on topicality.

Voting issues are not offense/defense---my overwhelming inclination is to evaluate the link to a voting issue (was the aff untopical/is T a microaggression/did the other team do something bad) prior to evaluating the theoretical impact. I am more willing to vote on zero link to those examples than others even if the terminal impact to them feels large.

Perms test the 1AC's advocacy---two implications of this: 1. If the 1AC does not present a clear advocacy statement, the 2AC shouldn't get a permutation since there is no basis for neg competition since the debate centers around the value of the 1AC rather than the desirability of a particular course of action; and 2. If the 1AC does present a clear advocacy statement, frame subtraction, the cap K that competes on historical analysis, and the "state good" CP are exceedingly likely to lose on a permutation since those things do not test the desirability of the advocacy.

V. Ks against Policy Affs

Tricks are annoying---I'm pretty bad for teams that rely on tricks in order to win, especially if those tricks are vague assertions of "serial policy failure" or "ontology" or "root cause" without tailored application to the aff. I'm a great judge for nuanced link debating, competing ethical frameworks, and in particular alternatives oriented towards changing the world in some capacity rather than simply analyzing it. Remember, I must be able to explain why arguments interact in order for me to weigh one in your favor, so if I can't explain why the link turns case, the link does not turn the case.

Tougher sell than most on strong ontology arguments---I struggle a lot with evaluating arguments that say the world must always be a certain way. It is very difficult to convince me that the world cannot get better or worse (especially that last one). This means I have a significantly higher threshold for evaluating ontology arguments than a lot of judges. To me, one ontology argument being true doesn't intuitively mean all others are off the table, and ontology is just a characterization of the world, not an indictment of political action.

"Perm do both" definitionally does not sever anything---by default, the aff can "sever" its representations because its representations being good was not the reason the 1AC said to vote aff. This makes me a hard sell on most neg framework interps.

VI. Counterplans

I will not kick the CP by default---I don't really get why people think conditionality applies to judge kick. Perm in the 2AR flips presumption aff. I'll still judge kick if I'm told to but won't if I'm not.

I don't like the other issues perm---the intrinsic perm is an unfortunate creation by Big 2A designed to avoid having to do research and understand why most process CPs are facially ridiculous. I am a much better judge for "perm do the plan and non-mutually exclusive parts of the CP" and similar perms that do part of the CP and all of the aff. I also think "perm do both" is underutilized against CPs that fiat their outcome, For example, if the courts CP fiats a ruling, the perm also fiats the ruling, so any perm argument that says the case gets tossed makes negative sense. If you insist on going for the other issues perm for some reason, it is important to identify the other side's arguments by name, clearly divide your offense and defense, and slow down when identifying what part of the debate you're on. Do not just read a 2NR block straight down and gesture towards the most common aff answers as if I will understand those as the same as the ones the 1AR made.

I need to understand CP solvency---I do not presume that a CP solves the case in the same way that I do not presume the 1AC reading a plan text automatically means it solves its advantages. This means vague CP texts, especially without cards attached to them, are not likely to persuade me, and the 2AC need not say much if the 1NC doesn't.

Aff leaning on certainty/immediacy/agent CPs---words often have multiple meanings, and the aff's definitions are usually better for debate.

Impacts matter---solvency deficits need connections to them. "Delay" and "certainty" only matter if connected to a particular 1AC internal link. Linking a CP to one of these concepts alone is unlikely to matter to me if the impact isn't clear.

VII. Topicality in Policy Debates

2ARs should always include reasonability---most T interps are stupid. The cards usually suck. T-Subsets should not be an argument. The topic is never as big as people say it is. Literature checks abuse the vast majority of the time. Stop letting the cult of limits consume us all.

Arbitrary limits are not limits---if your cards are significantly better, please go for predictability. If truth is on your side, that's a reason we should've written the resolution better. If you don't have the sauce, you probably shouldn't go for T unless the aff spots you competing interpretations.

Limits outweigh aff innovation, which is why you need to extend reasonability---being aff is so easy. You do not need to be untopical to beat the court clog DA or whatever. Reasonabliity is the only way to beat a neg limits impact in an evenly matched debate with two equally predictable inteprretations.

Plan in a vacuum is mostly unpersuasive---how do you interpret the plan in a vacuum? The 1AC read evidence that informs what the plan means. This is why the aff can go for solvency deficits against CPs and nuanced no link arguments against DAs. To me, it seems untenable to suggest that the evidence the 1AC used to define plan function should be ignored when deciding topicality. Now, if I can use the neg interpretation when interpreting the plan and still conclude the aff's characterization of the plan is feasible, plan in a vacuum makes sense.

VIII. The Status Quo, Disadvantages, and Impact Framing

Sequencing matters more than overall risk---in debates where everyone gets to the same terminal impact, by default, the faster impact wins. If the econ DA is faster than inevitable economic decline, I will vote to live another few days.

Fiat solves every rider and horsetrading DA---in general, rider and horsetrading DAs do not test plan desirability but feasibility. Bar technical concessions, I'm almost automatically aff if the 2AR goes for no link, so much so that the 2AC/1AR probably needn't say anything else.

Better than average for non-utilitarian impact frames---I'm persuaded by critiques of longtermist thinking. Avoiding extinction is one of many potential reasons for doing something, and I think debate would be better if everyone stopped pretending every possible action truly influences the risk of some world-ending catastrophe.

Wipeout/extinction good is fine, with a caveat---I have learned recently that I am very persuaded by even minimal impact defense to AI. I'm much better for animals/anti-natalism/other flavors of extinction good than that one.

Roop Guru BASIS Peoria 4 rounds

Sophia Gustafson Iowa City West 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 5:32 AM MDT

Please send all speech docs to icwestdebate@googlegroups.com and sophiargustafson@gmail.com . Please label each email with the round number, the partnership code, and the side. Example: "R1 Duchesne BB AFF v. Iowa City West KE."

Resources

I have compiled some resources to get better at debate here!

TLDR

Always tell me "Prefer my evidence/argument because." Meaningful and intentional extensions of uniqueness + link + internal link + impact (don't forget warrants) in combination with weighing will win you the round. Also, every second it takes you to send emails gives me one less second to think critically about my decision. Please be speedy with the emails! NOTE: Spreading will not get you far in rounds with me.

Experience

I attended Theodore Roosevelt High School in Des Moines, Iowa and debated with Ellie Konfrst (Roosevelt GK). I was a two time state champion when competing. I broke at the TOC and placed ninth at NSDA nationals my senior year (2018). I have also coached at NDF the following years: 2018, 2019, 2020. I am currently an attorney in Iowa City practicing workers compensation, personal injury, and medical malpractice. I am the current varsity PF coach at Iowa City West.

I have coached five teams (Duchesne Academy of the Sacred Heart BB, Iowa City West KE, Iowa City West EA, Iowa City West ED, and Iowa City West GA) to qualifying to the gold TOC. Iowa City West KE semi'd the TOC in 2024. While coaching various teams, I have helped secure upwards of 30 bids total.

What you should expect of me

It is my obligation to be familiar with the topic. I am also a very emotive judge, if I look confused please break down your argument. It is my obligation to provide for you a clear reason why my ballot was cast and to ensure that you and your coach are able to understand my decision. However, it is not my job to weigh impacts against each other / evaluate competing frameworks. I am always open to discuss the round afterwards.

Flowing

I love off time road maps and they help me flow, please give them! What is on my flow at the end of the round will make my decision for me and I will do my best to make my reasoning clear either on my ballot or orally at the end of the round. If you are organized, clean, clear and extending good argumentation well, you will do well. One thing that I find particularly valuable is having a strong and clear advocacy and a narrative on the flow. This narrative will help you shape responses and create a comparative world that will let you break down and weigh the round in the Final Focus. I also appreciate language that directly relates to the flow (tell me where to put your overview, tell me what to circle, tell me what to cross out).

Extensions

It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the uniqueness+links+impacts. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively.

Framework / Overviews

Framework

If a framework is essential for you to win the round / to your case it should be in constructive. I want to see your intention and round visions early on, squirrel-y argumentation through frameworks muddles the whole round. Only drop the framework if everyone agrees on it. If there is no agreement by summary, win under both.

Overviews

There are two types of overviews in my mind.

1: An overall response to their case.

Good idea.

2: Weighing overviews.

GREAT IDEA

I prefer overviews to be in rebuttal.

The Rebuttal

Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I also have a soft spot for weighing overviews and usually find them incredibly valuable if done and extended correctly.

If extended and weighed properly, turns are enough to win a round, but if you double turn yourself and muddle the debate you wasted critical time that could have been spent on mitigation/de-linking/non-uniques.

My preference is that the entire first rebuttal is spent on the opponent’s side of the flow. For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts. The second rebuttal should engage both the opponent’s case as well as the opponent’s responses. Ideally, the time split should be between 3:1 and 2:2.

Summary

I believe the job of the summary speaker (especially for first speaking teams) is the hardest in the round and can easily lose a debate. Extending framework/overviews (if applicable), front lining, and weighing are the three necessary components of any narrative in summary.

Structure:

Case extensions (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact)
Frontlining
Defense/Turn extensions
Weighing (this can be put anywhere among the other three above).

Frontlining =/= narrative extension.

Defense in the first summary. Make smart strategic decisions. If the defense is being blown up - or mentioned - in final focus it needs to be in summary.

Final Focus

This should be the exact same as your summary with more weighing and less frontlining. It is okay to extend less arguments if you make up for it with weighing.

Speed

Clarity is critical when speaking quickly. My wpm is about 200, going faster than this is risking an incomplete flow on my ballot. If I miss something because of speed, there was an error in judge adaptation.

Organization through all speeches is essential and especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible. Tell me where to flow overviews otherwise I'll just make a judgement call on where to put it on the flow.

Progressive Arguments

I'm cool with Theory / Ks / role of the ballot though you always should "dumb them down" to language used in PF and you must clearly articulate why there is value in rejecting a traditional approach to the topic. Theory / Ks / role of the ballot will also need to be slowed down in terms of speed. Also, you need to read theory right after the violation happens. If you read it as a spike to throw the other team off, I will not evaluate the argument.

I value teams taking daring strategic decisions (EX: drop case and go fully for turns EX2: non-uniquing / severing contentions to avoid opponents turns) and will reward you smart and effective risk-taking with speaker points. That being said, if you do it poorly I will still drop you.

A list of prog I have voted for in the past: IVIs (author/rhetoric based), DTD (based on in-round analysis), afro-pessimism, black nihilism, disclosure theory, paraphrasing theory, etc.

Cross

I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Please be polite and civil and it is everyone’s responsibility to de-escalate the situation as much as possible when it grows too extreme (some jokes are always preferred). Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. Making jokes in grand cross to liven up the debate is always good for your speaker points (but don't be that person who tries too hard please).

Speaking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeff Harkleroad A and M Consolidated High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 1, 2024 at 5:18 AM EDT

Congress

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for no rehash & building upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

LD Paradigm:

Each LDer should have a value/value criterion that clarifies how their case should be interpreted.

I prefer to evaluate a round by selecting whose V/VC weighs most heavily under their case. Winning this is not in itself a reason for you to win. Tell me what arguments you're winning at the contention level, how they link, and how much they weigh in comparison to other arguments (yours and your opponent's) in the round.

Voting down the flow, if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the contention level and judge off the flow.

PUBLIC FORUM

SPEED
Don't. I can't deal with speed.

EVIDENCE
Paraphrasing is a horrible practice that I discourage. Additionally, I want to hear evidence dates (year of publication at a minimum) and sources (with author's credential if possible) cited in all evidence.

REBUTTALS
I believe it is the second team's duty to address both sides of the flow in the second team's rebuttal. A second team that neglects to both attack the opposing case and rebuild against the prior rebuttal will have a very difficult time winning my ballot as whichever arguments go unaddressed are essentially conceded.

SUMMARIES
The summaries should be treated as such - summarize the major arguments in the debate. I expect debaters to start to narrow the focus of the round at this point.

FINAL FOCUS
FOCUS is key. I would prefer 2 big arguments over 10 blippy ones that span the length of the flow. If you intend to make an argument in the FF, it should have been well explained, supported with analysis and/or evidence, and extended from its origin point in the debate all the way through the FF.

IMPACTS

I rock with the nuclear war impact, but it's getting a little old, lol. The concept of a nuclear war is too complex and I find that it's been thrown too loosely in the debate space. I know it's cliche, but please don't generate this impact and tell me you win on magnitude and expect that to be a reason for me to give your team an easy ballot. If one of your impacts genuinely leads to an outbreak of a nuclear war, please warrant it well.

I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. I think the Aff's job is to propose a topical policy solution and the Negative's job is to demonstrate why that policy should be rejected. I will weigh the advantages and disadvantages, plan vs CP, and impacts. I will vote on kritiks if they can be clearly enunciated and applied to the advocacy in round. C-X is a highly effective way of framing/rebutting your opponent's arguments.

NFA-LD

I view NFA-LD as one-person policy. Please refer to CX comments just above.

INTERP

Overall: I pay real close attention to the introduction of each piece, I look for the lens of analysis and the central thesis that will be advanced during the interpretation of literature. When the performance is happening, I'm checking to see if they have dug down deep enough into an understanding of their literature through that intro and have given me a way to contextualize the events that are happening during the performance

POI: I look for clean transitions and characterization (if doing multiple voices).

DI: I look for the small human elements that come from acting. Big and loud gestures are not always the way to convey the point, sometimes something smaller gets the point more powerfully.

HI: I look for clean character transitions, distinct voices, and strong energy in the movements. And of course the humor.

INFO: I'm looking for a well researched speech that has a strong message to deliver. Regardless of the genre of info you're presenting, I think that showing you've been exhaustive with your understanding is a good way to win my ballot. I'm not wow'd by flashy visuals that add little substance, and I'm put off by speeches that misrepresent intellectual concepts, even unintentionally. I like speeches that have a conclusion, and if the end of your speech is "and we still don't know" then I think you might want to reassess the overall direction you are taking.

FX/DX: When I'm evaluating an extemp speech, I'm continually thinking "did they answer the question? or did they answer something that sounded similar?" So keep that in your mind. Are you directly answering the question? When you present information that could be removed without affecting the overall quality of the speech, that is a sign that there wasn't enough research done by the speaker. What I vote on in terms of content are speeches that show a depth of understanding of the topic by evaluating the wider implications that a topic has for the area/region/politics/etc.

Anna Herrig Monta Vista High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 10, 2024 at 5:45 AM MST

Email: Annaherrig2@gmail.com

General:

UTT 21-Present

Please send speech docs! (also if you say "mark the card here" please mark it)

Lets all learn something from each other. Debate is supposed to be fun, that being said, if you are having fun, I'll have a better time judging the round. The best judges will listen to any argument and style of debate. Do what you are best at. I try to leave predispositions out of decision-making as much as possible (it's not) and will work hard to adjudicate your round well. It's not my job to decide what you should debate, but to help you become better at how you choose to debate.

Signposting is important, please do this throughout your speeches and tell me the order beforehand.

Tech>truth.

If you say the words "for a brief off time roadmap," I am going to be sad.

Topicality

I will vote on T. I think you need to be explaining why you have the better internal link to either fairness or education. I think these debates have gotten increasingly shallow, and no one goes for it as a super compelling strategy in the block anymore. Explain why under your interpretation, debate is better and you method is better for debate at large. Arguing the spillover effects of your interp is an easy way to win this on the negative. Generics will not do it for me. I default to competing interpretations.

Disads

You should be cutting new uniqueness very often, and if you go for this strategy the quality of your evidence will have an impact on my decision. "If your link cards are generic and outdated and the aff is better in that department, then you need to have a good reason why your evidence is more qualified, etc. Make your scenario clear, DAs are great but some teams tend to go for a terminal impact without explanation of the scenario or the internal link args. Comparative analysis is important so I know how to evaluate the evidence that I am reading. Tell me why the link o/w the link turn etc. Impact analysis is very important, timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc., so I can know why the Da impacts are more important than the affs impacts. A good articulation of why the Da turns each advantage is extremely helpful because the 2ar will most likely be going for those impacts in the 2ar. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, this goes for both sides. If you want to win a link turn, you must win that the disad is non-unique and if you want to win the link you must win that it is." -Kristiana Baez. There is such thing as 0% risk of a link.

Counterplans

Much more persuasive if they have a solvency advocate, just reading a line in the 1NC just to dump 6 minutes on it in the block means that I give the aff leniency in rebuttals to catch up, but that isn't an excuse for sloppy 2ACs. I really like counterplans, and I like process counterplans. I don't love super generic CP's with the same set of solvency cards each round. However, if the evidence is good then I am more likely to believe you when you claim aff solvency. There needs to be a good articulation for why the aff links to the net benefit and good answers to cp solvency deficits, assuming there are any. Permutation debate needs to be hashed out on both sides, with Da/net benefits to the permutations made clear.

Kritiks

Feel free to read them on affirmative or negative, but don't get lazy with them and engage with the arguments the other team is making. Just reading the blocks you wrote at the beginning of the season and not referencing specific authors, lines of evidence from either side and engaging with arguments without specificity is a good way to get really behind in these debates. You should have specific links to the aff. I am the best for cap. Anything else, especially anything pomo, you will need to explain to me like I am a 5 year old. If you're arguing that the k outweighs and turns case, you need a solid articulation as to why. You also need to be arguing specific impacts of the k, and how that compares to the claims made in the affirmative. I need a very clear explanation of framing here, and if you go for the K in the 2NR you should be writing my ballot for me. I also need a very clear picture of how the alternative functions, and why you solve the aff if you do.

K v K

I think that these debates can be really great because clash is kind of important. However, these debates tend to get really muddled, so you need to work extra hard to make things clear for me rather than just assuming I will lean one way or another. When it comes to K Affs v. FW, I think that you need to do a lot of work and don't just go for generic arguments like switch side without giving specific examples of things like in round abuse, etc. or interesting impact arguments. Ex: just saying roleplaying good/bad without a really good explanation is not going to be compelling.

Performance/Methodology debates

I am in no way biased in one way or another. I think that arguments need to be competitive. The things you may talk about in your performance/methodology may be true, but there needs to be a clear link articulated to the argument that you are debating. Many times competing methodologies start to sound really similar to each other, so teams need to establish a clear difference between the arguments.

Theory

Dumb theory or tricks won't do it for me. However, the less generic you are, the more I would be willing to vote on this. I believe theory that is done well and is well-articulated could be a compelling place for me to vote. I think proving in round abuse is important. Generally, I think condo is good.

Pref Stuff:

I am best for a policy v policy debate and or policy v k debate.

Samuel Howlett Bergen County Academies 7 rounds

Tianle Hu Newton South High School 4 rounds

Charles Huang Thomas Jefferson HSST 4 rounds

Ben Jacobs Canyon Crest Academy 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 11:54 AM EDT

Hi everyone! I'm Ben. I'm currently a student at Vanderbilt studying economics and history, and public policy. I debated for 3 years in PF for Myers Park on the nat circuit. I now coach/judge PF on the side for Myers Park and Canyon Crest Academy. You can call me Ben, not judge.

Add me to the chain- bgkkjacobs@gmail.com

Send all cases on an email chain with a label (ie. TOC R1F1 Myers Park BJ v Cary LJ).

I don't care what you wear. Speak how you want. Email me if you have any accessibility concerns before round.

My paradigm is too long. If you are just doing a trad/JV/Novice round and need my basic round preferences then read the stuff with a ❤️ by the title.

TRAD>TOPICAL Ks> THEORY> NON TOPICAL Ks> ANYTHING ELSE

WEIGHING❤️-

Weigh early. Be creative and comparative rather than just namedropping STIMP. I'd really like to hear a strong narrative with your weighing rather than spamming mechanisms like turns. I'm more inclined to vote for a compelling story of weighing rather than 1 of the 5 prereqs you spammed and they dropped.

I don't hack for high magnitude low probability args or shorthand impacts- if you are telling me a nuclear winter is going to happen you need to give me a step by step warrant not just some random conspiracy theorist on the internet saying we are all going to go boom.

SPEED ❤️-

The faster you go, the worse my flow gets and the worse my decision will be. I can probably flow your spreading but I cant promise I will be able to pick up the full effect of your analytics. I don't want to flow off a doc but like when they are sent. I would almost always prefer an average paced round to something faster.

SPEECH PREFERENCES ❤️-

Tell me which side you will start on so I know which flow to have out.
I RARELY FLOW CARD TAGS so just remind me what the card says if you are telling me to flow through a response.
Make explicit strategic choices. I want to see you collapse and build a late round narrative. If you choose your path to the ballot with a minute left in final you probably won't win.

Framing -

If you establish a framework, your opponent has every right to co-opt the framing. I am completely okay with collapsing into a framework or dropping links to fit a framework. Framework is not offense, it only establishes a filter through which I evaluate the round. If you want to garner offense off of underlying assumptions of an argument then run a K.

THEORY-

Theory is usually boring. Nevertheless, you should come to the round prepared to defend the way in which you debate if it is outside the norms of the nat circuit. I will vote on disclo and I will vote on para, I just don't like those rounds much. Feel free to run whatever, but my threshold for DTD/DTA gets high when theory gets frivolous.

Ks- These are fun. I was not a K debater but definitely had K rounds. I am an okay judge for these as long as you explain your lit well.

The Non Topical K

I won't auto vote down a performance K or other non topical K because I recognize that they have had some positive impact on the debate space- I just need a really valid reason as to why you are choosing not to be topical in the K.

The topical K

I am happy to hear a topical K, they are super fun if they are run well. I may have read some of your literature but pretend I am unfamiliar entirely, because, more frequently than not, I am. I hate Ks that are needlessly complex. It is your job as a debater to simplify your arguments for presentation or it is hard for me to vote.

If you have reached this point in my paradigm then tell me the starting lineup of any NBA team and I will floor my speaks at 29 (no cheating...). You can also tell me your favorite TV show and I'll bump everyone's speaks +1 for actually reading my ramble.

Ethan Jacobs Canyon Crest Academy 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 12:41 PM EDT

Hey, I’m Ethan. I debated as Myers Park BJ on the nat circuit for 4 years. I am now a sophomore at Emory and coach for Canyon Crest Academy.

Add me to the chain- ethan.jacobs@emory.edu

If you have any questions about my judging philosophy email me before the round.

TL;DR- Run anything you think will win. I adapt to you but have some quality-of-life preferences.

Speed- I don’t flow with docs but you can read as fast as you want. Any PF speed should be fine. Please enunciate. Many debaters are spreading in my rounds (which is fine) but do not fully enunciate each word (not fine) so I miss things on my flow. Additionally, having 5 sheets in a round is not an excuse to mumble through your cards to get through them as fast as you can. It only hurts you if I am flowing poorly, so try your best to follow these preferences :)

Evidence Exchange- Please send speech docs with evidence before speeches to keep ev exchange timely.

Trad Stuff

I am a pretty standard tech judge.

I appreciate when debaters are persuasive. That means use persuasive examples, slow down on important points, and use rhetoric to your advantage. This doesn't mean I'm a fake tech I just want you to be really good at explaining your warrants. You will lose a lot of speaks if you doc bot the whole round. Read your good prep but you should be using your head in the backhalf to make strategic choices. Good analytics>bad cards every time.

Prog Stuff

Overall- I am enjoying judging prog a lot more. If you have a cool K or want to try out a good shell, this will probably be received well. Do your thing and have fun.

A note on my adjudication abilities- I am not a human calculator, and since I have not judged in a bit, I encourage you to limit the number of different sheets I require for the debate. I do not find it persuasive when teams read silly theory shells against serious critical arguments just to suck time, and I often find that these debates get extremely messy. Also, see my thoughts on enunciating at the top of my paradigm. This is CRUCIAL to getting fair adjudication from me. If I can't understand your words, I can't vote for them. However, I am not here to penalize you for spreading. I will say "clear" and make it very clear that I am missing things -- I just ask that you are responsive to my cues.

Theory- Feel free to run theory. Please keep these debates organized. I want the shell extended but idc if its word for word. I am most familiar with disclosure and paraphrasing shells, but am fine evaluating anything as long as its not clearly frivolous. I strongly believe that teams should read a CI against shells, RVI's should only be reserved for extremely friv theory. Try to keep your shells below 250 WPM.

Biases- I don’t think disclosure is necessary (I didn't disclose bc I wanted to read a CI when I debated) but most disclo rounds I judge go to the team that initiated the theory. Paraphrasing is bad, but I think debates about the norm are fun and I will not hack for it. I think most warrants for TW's being bad are not emotionally intelligent. Anything else I do not have strong feelings.

Topical K’s- Feel free to run these arguments. The most important thing for me is that you make the argument accessible to everyone in the round. If you are reading complicated cards with a lot of jargon, please spend the time to clarify arguments for me and your opponents. I do not like when teams use policy cards that don’t form coherent sentences. Do not skimp on extensions, every part of the K should be extended with proper warrants to win. Any ROTB is fine with me, but I appreciate it when debaters engage with each other on this issue. I am most familiar with Security, if you are reading anything else assume I know nothing. I will listen closely in cross but do not flow (if you ask me to I will). Try to not speak too fast, keep in mind that K literature is not my expertise.

Non-Topical K- See most of the “topical K section”, almost all of it applies here. Please justify why you are non-topical in the first speech. I don't like unrealistic alts- I think non-topical arguments are most valid when they remind us that things need to be changed in our world and would like to hear your best ideas on how to achieve that change. I am very receptive to vague alts bad arguments. Tbh the more I judge the less I worry about the norms that these arguments break. Have fun and do your thing.

I encourage you to post-round me. The best way to learn from your mistakes is by having conversations with judges. Additionally, I will never be perfect at evaluating rounds and I appreciate hearing thoughts on my decision from the debater's perspective.

Zhihua Jiang Acton-Boxborough Regional High School 7 rounds

neel kanamangala Notre Dame San Jose 4 rounds

Sukhm Kang University School 4 rounds

Charles Karcher The Chapin School 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 23, 2024 at 4:57 AM EDT

TLDR: 2010s tech judge who likes the K

Updated September 2024

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is charlesdebate7@gmail.com

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach PF and LD.

This is my 11th year involved in debate overall and my 7th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

Top Level

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most K authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I appreciate good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and have their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

While I am a strong believer that judges should not categorically prevent debaters from reading certain styles of arguments, there are certain behaviors and norms that I believe should be modeled in the debate space:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I think about the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

4] Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have high expectations for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its expectations this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Misc. notes:

I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
Put your analytics in the speech doc!
Trigger warnings are important
CX and prep ends as soon as the timer beeps! Time yourself.
Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

Public Forum

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating, and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

RVI’s are not a thing in PF. Ideally, theory isn’t either.

I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Don’t do it.

Lincoln-Douglas

LD is the event that I’m most comfortable judging – most of my coaching and judging experience is in this event.

I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default.

My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).

David Kennedy Strake Jesuit College Preparatory 7 rounds

Austin Kiihnl Hire 1 rounds

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

Caddo Magnet ‘21

Kentucky '25

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

Conflicts

Caddo Magnet

Niles North

Top Level

The most important thing I have to say is that I will do my absolute best to judge every debate in the least interventionist way possible, besides a few non-negotiables I'll list below. I will vote on an argument that I profoundly disagree with if I think that it was won. However, evidence quality influences technical debating and I value good evidence highly, even though I don't usually read a ton of cards in high school debates because I don't feel like I need to.

I've found that even though I have a ton of opinions about what I think debate should look like, those preferences pretty much entirely go away when judging. I don't care much at all about what arguments debaters are making and really only care about how it's debated. I've been in a lot of debates and have seen many people go for many different arguments, so I should be able to understand yours. However, I will say that I have a fairly strong preference for organized, and technical debating, and not debating in this way will probably make it harder than you'd like for me to give a satisfying decision.

I'll do my best to default to as few things as possible and adapt to the debate at hand. If you want me to view the debate a certain way, tell me how I should so I don't have to substitute my preferences for your debating.

Inequality Topic

I judged a lot of debates on the topic as a lab leader in a Michigan Classic lab this summer, so I have a basic understanding of what the topic looks like, but I'm not super involved in researching the high school topic, so you may want to unpack some particularly technical topic concepts/acronyms.

General Thoughts

I think of debate as a game, which filters a lot of these thoughts, but you can easily win that debate is not a game or is more than just a game. (Almost) everything is debatable.

It's generally better to make bold choices and only go for a few pieces of offense in the final rebuttals to explain them well than to go for a lot of things and not explain them as thoroughly.

I default to evaluating arguments probabilistically. That goes away if questioned.

Line by line is good.

Judge instruction is good.

Justify new arguments. Just because another team says you don't get new arguments doesn't mean it's true, especially if they're reading cards on an argument you dropped.

If you're going for a K of reps, you probably need case defense unless it was grossly mishandled. I see going for reps links while not answering the case as a bit like a link turn with no UQ. If you disagree, explain why and you'll be all good.

It'll help you to start the debate on judge kick early.

Good for T arguments with good evidence. I generally prefer predictability over debatability, but that's not absolute and shouldn't affect how I evaluate debates.

Good for competition debates. Send perm texts if it's anything besides do both, do the CP, or some variation of the plan and certain planks.

Good for politics. Read a lot of cards.

Good for impact turns and theory. Not because I think the arguments are true, I just think of them like any other argument and a lot of teams are bad at answering them. I don't really see why going for theory if you're winning is more "cowardly" than going for other arguments that you're winning that are technical TKOs, but that doesn't mean it's always or even often the best strategy.

Good for Ks that are impact turns/solvency takeouts to the case. Good for Ks that have alts that solve the case and links that are DAs to the plan. Probably best for Ks that are just Framework and say the aff shouldn't get to weigh the plan.

Good for extinction outweighs vs. the K. Also fine for the perm and link turns.

Good for clash and fairness. Fine for other impacts to FW. Good for a counter-interp or impact turn strategy against FW, just make sure you pick one.

Generally don't love K affs that identify truisms and say that's a reason to vote for them. Pointing out bad things does nothing for you if you don't have a means of solving them. Of course, you can also get unique offense based on what the neg says, but you need to explain what voting aff does, whether it changes debate practices, rejects unethical ones in just this debate, forwards a desirable political strategy, etc.

Fairly bad for frivolous theory arguments when they aren't based on resolutional language. For example, if the 2AC drops ASPEC, the neg often didn't have enough of an argument to extend it in the 2NC without making new arguments, so the 1AR gets to justify new arguments too. That doesn't mean I won't vote on bad theory arguments (I have), or that new 1AR arguments are automatically justified, but it does mean that I have a pretty high bar for winning them.

Bad for analogizing T to actual violence (genocide, drone strikes, etc.). That's not to say that you can't problematize reading T, but arguments comparing it to literal violence are wildly unpersuasive.

I think role of the ballot arguments are usually pretty silly.

Not the biggest fan of many soft left affs. I think lots of aff framing arguments are kinda silly but so are lots of other arguments, so I don’t actually care too much. I obviously prefer aff-specific framing arguments but if generic, I prefer risk assessment (existential risks overestimated, probability outweighs, conjunctive fallacy, butterfly effect, etc.) type aff framing arguments instead of "X comes first," "extinction is non-unique," and asserting that a DA is low risk without actual defense, but that seems to be out of vogue.

If you're going to say that plan text in a vacuum, functional and/or textual competition, utilitarianism, probability first, etc. are bad, you need to provide an alternative to those things. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of reading offense against a T interp when you don't have a counter-interp to solve any offense. The fact that those things have problems doesn't necessarily mean that alternatives are better.

I judge this a little bit and there's not much that I have to say about it specifically. All of the stuff above applies equally to LD. I've only ever debated in policy and usually only judge policy so I'm probably best for you if you just act like this is a one-person policy debate.

Never really had a debate where "value criterions" became important, but if you're gonna do that, just explain why offense in favor of yours outweighs offense in favor of theirs and you'll be fine.

Not a fan of frivolous theory arguments.

I've only judged this a few times. It would probably also help you to act like this was a policy debate because of my lack of familiarity with PF specifically. Really, you just need to win that your offense outweighs your opponent's.

Please don't paraphrase articles when first reading them. That's bordering on an academic integrity violation. Just read what your cards actually say, then you can obviously explain and paraphrase them in later speeches.

Non-negotiables

Both teams get 8 minutes for constructives, 5 minutes for rebuttals, and however many minutes of prep time the tournament invitation says/everyone in the round agrees to. I won't flow anything you say after the timer goes off.

CX is binding.

There is one winner and one loser.

I will flow both teams unless requested not to. If you request me not to flow and the other team would like me to, then I just won't flow you, which will almost certainly end up worse for you and make the debate harder for me to decide.

I won't vote on anything that did not occur in the round/I didn't see (personal attacks, prefs, disclosure, etc.). I think a judge's role is to determine who won the debate at hand, not who is a better person outside of it, and there's often no way to verify out-of-round claims. If someone makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, I will assist you in going to tab/whoever you'd feel most comfortable with so they can create a solution, but I don't view that as something that the judge should decide a debate upon, especially for high schoolers.

If a team initiates an ethics challenge, the debate stops and if it's found to be legitimate, the offending team will lose and will get the lowest speaks I can give. If it's not found to be legitimate, the team that initiated the challenge will lose.

It'll be hard to offend me but don't say any slurs or engage in harmful behavior against anyone else in the debate including racism, sexism, homophobia, intentionally misgendering someone, etc. I see pretty much all arguments as fair game but when that becomes personally harmful for other people in the debate, or is something indefensible like racism good, then it's crossed a line. I've thankfully never seen something like this happen in a debate that I've been in but it'd be naive to act like it's never happened. The line for what is and is not personally harmful to someone is obviously arbitrary but that applies to almost all things in debate, so I think it's fair to say that it's also up to the judge's discretion to determine when the line has been crossed.

Misc

I'm pretty expressive but I try not to be. I don't want to influence how the debate plays out but if I'm confused, think an argument is funny, or think an argument is bad, I might unintentionally show it.

I'll boost your speaks if you're reading a substantial number of cards that you cut if they're good. I've been seeing a lot of old, bad cards in docs that could very easily be replaced in an afternoon, so I'll reward people that I see putting in the work. I'll be ecstatic if most of your cards, especially in the 1AC and 1NC, are from 2021 or newer.

I've noticed lots of debaters being pretty quiet when they're speaking which has made it hard to understand and flow. It seems like a result of online debate, so I'll cut some slack, but it's generally better to be too loud than too quiet.

Call me Austin, not "judge."

I like when people are funny. Lighten up the debate and make some (good) jokes if that's your thing.

Feel free to post-round. You won't offend me.

Parker Klyn Theodore Roosevelt High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 9:15 AM CDT

Parker Klyn, Director of Forensics at Theodore Roosevelt High School (Des Moines, IA)

Call me Parker, Mr. Klyn, or judge, whichever you're most comfortable with.

Roosevelt is looking for an assistant debate coach for 2025-2026. This would be a perfect role for a first-year out or college student based in the Midwest. You would only be obligated for one virtual practice ~2-2.5 hours/week as well as free trips to 5-6 bid tournaments in the region as well as TOC. Pay is ~$3200 for the year. Next year, we return two intact partnerships who qualified to Gold TOC in PF -- you'd be coaching the highest caliber of debater. If you are interested, email me AFTER TOC.

Email: klynpar@gmail.com

**********

Judging Philosophy

Tech over truth. The only arguments I won't vote on are unwarranted IVIs and "new affs bad." I am happy to adjudicate the round the competitors want to have, whatever that looks like. Judges have a moral obligation to evaluate debates as fairly as possible and any intervention at all does a profound disservice to the hard work and preparation of the students in this wonderful activity.

Write my ballot for me (utilize clear judge instruction) in the final speeches. Offense/defense, the flow determines all, go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. I do not flow off the doc.

Outside of that, to cast a ballot in your favor, I need two things. First, I need complete extensions of whatever argument you're going for in each speech. Second, I need to be able to articulate the link story that resolves your offense, whatever that offense might look like. If one or both of those requirements are not met, I am comfortable holding the line even if those arguments are "won" on the flow.

LD Prefs:

Policy/LARP: 1

K: 1

T/Theory: 1

Phil: 2

Tricks: 3

**********

About Me

I'm on the NSDA Public Forum Topic & Wording Committee. I coach the West Iowa District World Schools teams.

I lead labs at NDF/Summit Debate and Public Forum Boot Camp. I would love the opportunity to teach you at those camps.

I love judging. It makes me a better coach. You will always have my full attention in-round and I will do everything I possibly can to adjudicate the round fairly and completely. Ask as many questions before/after the round as you like.

Debate is the best part of my life. I feel so lucky to be able to do this as my calling and I'm proud of you for doing it too. Debate has allowed an awkward kid like me who grew up in Grinnell, IA (population: 9,000) to flourish as an educator and coach. I'm an open book: if there's anything I can do to help you learn, just ask. I value the educational aspect of debate far beyond any competitive result. If you want to read some of my opinions/takes on debate click here.

Samantha Koenig West Broward High School 4 rounds

Roger Lam Richard Montgomery High School 4 rounds

Kasandra Lambert Scarsdale High School 4 rounds

Tuyen Le Seven Lakes High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 25, 2024 at 3:17 PM CDT

*conflicted with BREAK LD (May ‘24-Nov ‘24), Seven Lakes

Email chain/questions: tuyendebate@gmail.com

Additionally, please add the following emails depending on your event:

PF: sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com

LD: sevenlakesld@googlegroups.com

CX: sevenlakescx@googlegroups.com

Round should start at start time. The first constructive (not the tester email) should be sent by start time. If you cause the round to start late I will dock your speaks.

__________________________________________________

Background/Important info:

University of Houston (Policy debate '21 -'23), BCHS (LD ‘19-‘21), Seven Lakes HS (Assistant Coach ‘23-Current)

***I will not vote on anything that happened outside of round (except disclosure) If you are about to debate someone that makes you feel unsafe or uncomfortable please sort this out with tab before round rather than making it an in-round voting issue.

I will not be happy if you purposefully make the round inaccessible or do not make an effort to let the other debater engage (ex. you hit a novice/local debater and you spread 4 Ks at top speed and a-spec is hidden in between the cards). I will not hesitate to dock your speaks and/or drop you.

Try to minimize excessive noise during speeches and while the ballot is being written. This is basic etiquette, but it is particularly important for me since I tend to get overstimulated.

_________________________________________________

GENERAL (for all debates):

TLDR: primarily a policy judge, but you can do whatever as along as you do it well

Policy/Cap > Security/Set Col > Identity Ks/Phil > PoMo Ks > Tricks/Friv Theory (strike)

Debaters work hard and I will always try my best to adapt to you, but my experience and knowledge of args varies. For the most part, you can run what you want and I will vote on anything, but your burden of explanation increases the further you move down the list above. That being said I would suggest that you do not over-adapt. I think the judge's level of preround knowledge becomes less relevant in front of debaters who know their arguments well.

Tech > truth in most cases, but truth determines your burden of proof. Arguments that are less true will naturally require more explanation to be persuasive.
Burden of proof before the burden of rejoinder - A statement without a warrant is not an argument. You will not win off a blip. If your primary strategy is to make as many terribly warranted args as possible in hopes that your opponent drops one then you should strike me.

Will evaluate the round exactly how you tell me to - The more weighing and judge instruction you give the less likely I’ll have to intervene to make a decision. If you do neither of these things do not be upset when I arbitrarily decide how to evaluate the round.

I will vote off the flow - I evaluate ev when it is contested. I think more debaters should be punished for reading terrible evidence, but I will not do the work for you. I only flow the things said in your speech, but I will occasionally follow along on the doc to check for clipping. (Horrendous clipping is an auto L).

Time yourself and your opponents

Things I default to but can be convinced to consider otherwise: judgekick, condo good, disclosure good, debate good, competing interps

-------

Specific Args:

LD, CX, PF are combined below. If it is not here, assume I have no specific thoughts about it. Everything that is here is easily changeable via technical debating.

I will always try my best to evaluate every argument objectively, but it would be dishonest for me to say that I have not historically been more likely to be persuaded by certain arguments over others.

K --- I have and will vote on any K that is debated well, HOWEVER:

I prefer Ks that critique structures over identity Ks. Two reasons:

1. Unfamiliar with the lit bases - I judge these rounds often, but I have not read enough specific lit to know more than what debaters have explained to me in rounds.

2. In round violence - I think that the way some debaters run K args introduces new violence into the round that wasn't previously there. This makes me sad because I think K lit is interesting and great, but its implementation in debate has pushed me towards policy args. An articulation that is just an ad hom is a losing one.

Ks on the AFF: All of the reasons above make me quite receptive to FW against K AFFs. Specifically, if you read a K AFF but cannot provide a reason for why your arguments should be negated. The first question I’ll ask myself when evaluating the round is “What does the AFF do?” If I cannot answer this you’ve lost.

Ks on the NEG: I like clash rounds and I am much more likely to vote for a K on the neg than a K on the AFF. Specifically if you run Ks like cap like a cp+da or security like a case turn. Explanations that lean into the Ks interactions with the aff on the fiat-ed consequences level have a much higher chance of getting my ballot than Ks that garner offensive primarily from proximate violence impacts.

Theory (excluding T) ---

The greater the time constraints in the debate event the more I tend to err towards the team answering theory. In policy debate there is enough time to develop arguments and thus I tend to view theory in policy as a legit strategic tool. In PF theory makes me want to cry and I’m more likely to err towards reasonability.

friv theory is stupid, I do not like when debaters are afraid of clash.

Disclosure: If you have screenshots/evidence of non disclosure you should put it in the doc. Things said/shown to me during the speeches are the only things I will evaluate.

------

Extra notes for specific events:

PF ---

Read less and better args - I can no longer bring myself to vote on these horrifically warranted link chains that have 0 explanation in ff. Because ev practices in PF are so bad and no one reads warrants my ballot has increasingly been decided on purely which link chain I understand more. Better warranting and better ev will win you the round.

Please collapse in the ff. it is not possible for you to adequately explain 4 diff pieces of offense in 2(?) minutes.

if you go for a turn it must be weighed like any other piece of offense

Prioritize articulating full arguments - If you blip through arguments and don't finish your sentences I will have no idea what you are saying and it will functionally be as if you have said nothing.

Signpost when youre answering different contentions and moving between flows

Procedural stuff - If you send all the cards you are going to read before your speech and don't paraphrase I will boost your speaks

You must start the prep timer if you want to ask a question outside of CX period.

No prep if there is not a timer running.

Weighing - I will judge the round like a policy maker under an offense defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise. If there is no offense in the final focus you will probably lose.

I notice that in most PF rounds there is no clash on weighing. PFers tend to weigh in a vacuum- ie they do not contextualize the weighing to the rest of the round or do meta weighing. Please do that.

K: You can run it if you think you can explain it to me in 4 minutes

Defense is not sticky: I will only evaluate things that get extended throughout the debate all the way into the last speech.

Second rebuttal must extend case and frontline. I will not extend args for you just because they are dropped.

Theory: counter interp =\= RVI

LD ---

I don’t judge LD as frequently anymore which means that I may be unfamiliar with various norms and arguments. You should slow down when reading multipoint blocks of analytics since it will take me time to process arguments I am unfamiliar with. Take care to implicate and explain more than usual if you are reading anything besides policy or Ks.

I read phil and did mostly traditional LD in high school because my program was small, but I have done policy debate in college and have been judging on the circuit long enough for you to treat me like a regular tech judge.

while I know phil lit. bases I have not thought about them extensively in the context of debate arguments. This means that you may have to slow down a bit and do more explaining. I have a pretty good background content wise for all the very basic and generic phils (Kant, Hobbes, any other enlightenment philosopher, etc.). I prefer substantial over tricky phil.

________________________

Spreading: I don’t care how fast you go if you're clear and signpost, but if I don't hear you it's your fault. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.

Speaks --- I'll start at 28 and move up or down from there

Speaks + : make good strategic decisions, creative, show good understanding of the topic/args, are efficient, organized. I reward the most speaks to debaters who are kind and make debate an enjoyable and welcoming space

Speaks - : Make personal attacks, are unorganized, don’t clash, waste time/steal prep

Jen Lee Langley 5 rounds

Kurtis Lee Ridge High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 8:11 AM EDT

PF UPDATE - PRINCETON

Please treat me like a flay judge. If you try to run theory or a K the bar is set VERY high. If you attempt to spread you will be "cleared" if your clarity is poor. Therefore, please just treat me like a flay judge to make it easier on all of us!

kurtisjlee@gmail.com

Put me on the email chain

Send all cards before the speech, stop killing time in the round on asking for individual cards please.

3 Years Highschool PFD Debate

3 Years College Policy Debate

(Policy)

1. I'm fine with speed. Obviously if you're forcing it and sound off and you dont see me flowing then you need to slow down (which you and your partner should be observing anyway).

2. You will benefit greatly by slowing down on tag lines and reading plans, and flipping between flows.

(PFD + Policy)

I'm really big on the technical side of debate. That means clearly outlining and discussing the:

1. Impact Calculus

-Timeframe
-Magnitude
-Probability
-How your impacts relate to your opponent's impacts
-How these impacts actually happen, the full story behind them, paint a picture. ELI5

2. Links

-They do X so they link, is not a link.

-I weight links pretty heavily in arguments so I prefer when debates spend time to contextualize the links within the story of the debate

3. Uniqueness

-Usually not an issue but i've been surprised before, often gets assumed

4. Internal Link

-Im very skeptical of you just arriving at extinction. I mainly ran policy arguments so I know how ridiculously easy it is to just fit in 16 extinction scenarios in your constructed speech but I need to see that internal link debate fleshed out.

5. Open to any kritiks/performance but the above bullets apply even more so. I do not like when teams brush over the technical side of debate just because they arent running nuclear war. Arguments are still arguments and logic is still logic.

6. Framework - I lean towards debate being a game. That being said, there are obviously millions of ways to debate within that framework.

Anything else just ask.

Kurtis Lee

Jolie Leung Archbishop Mitty 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 11:14 AM PDT

Archbishop Mitty '18

UC Berkeley '22

USC Gould Law '25

About me

I did PF in high school pretty competitively. If you have any other questions for me just ask before the round!

*PLEASE MAKE EVIDENCE EXCHANGES QUICK AND ONLY DISPUTE EVIDENCE IN SPEECHES*

PLEASE WEIGH.

preflow before round please.

*Note on prep time: if you are prepping while you are waiting for a card, you need to run prep.

Technicalities

I will not evaluate arguments without warrants! Extending warrants in summary and final focus is very necessary. It's not enough to say "extend x author or x statistic" without the warrant.
For me to vote on an argument please 1) Warrant it and 2) Weigh it.
First Summary: It is not necessary to extend defensive arguments in first summary. The exception is if they frontline said arguments in second rebuttal, in which case you should respond to the frontlines.
Second Summary: All defensive arguments you extend in final focus must be in second summary or I will not weigh them.
Everything in final focus should be in summary. Two exceptions. 1) Again, first final focus can extend defense that was not responded to in the second rebuttal. *That does NOT mean first FF can make NEW analysis/weighing about that defense! 2) First final focus can frontline a response that was not brought up until the 2nd summary.
Second rebuttal should spend some amount of time answering first rebuttal. While you should prioritize answering case, some response toward first rebuttal is ideal.
Weighing: Start weighing in summary, including first summary. Don't just weigh impacts. Link-level weighing is just as or even more important. Collapsing in summary and final focus is crucial.
Impacts: Always terminalize your impacts. If possible, I prefer concrete numbers that directly relate to your argument (1000 lives). This makes it easier to weigh as well. If you are extending/weighing scalar impacts (i.e. x increases y by 20%) try to contextualize that percentage.

Evidence

Evidence ethics in debate and especially in PF are a big problem in my opinion. I strongly prefer quoting sources, but if you are paraphrasing make sure it does not misconstrue the intent of the author.
Have your evidence readily available. If you cannot locate a card within a few minutes, I will strike it.
I’ll call for evidence after the round has ended in two scenarios: 1. I was explicitly told to call for a card in a speech or 2. A card was consistently disputed in the round.
If upon examination, there is legitimate abuse of evidence, I am automatically dropping you and docking speaker points.

Speaking

My average is ~28.5. I assign speaker points based on strategic decision-making in round.
I’m fine with speed, but no spreading. That being said, clarity precludes speed; only go as fast as you can while speaking in a comprehensible manner.
Signpost clearly, especially in summary and final focus.
You will lose points if you are overly aggressive or rude.

Ks/Theory: I honestly do not have much experience with Ks and theory, so I would really prefer you not run it because I will have no idea how to evaluate it.

David Levin St. Luke's School 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 20, 2024 at 9:30 AM EDT

David Levin

he/him/his

Email chain: davidlevindebate[AT]gmail.com

Current Affiliations: Speyer School; Berkeley Carroll

Previous Affiliations: St. Luke's: 2022-24 [Conflict]; Success Academy Charter Schools: 2019-20; Bronx Science: 2018-19

----------

Top-Level Expectations:

-Be decent to one another

-Be ready to debate at the start time, including an email chain/speechdrop

-(Online) - sound check before round, and check to make sure we're all ready before you start your speech

----------

LD:

~90% of my judging has been for Policy and PF.

-I like critical arguments, and policy arguments a close second.

-Phil is pretty new to me - I can't say I fully get it yet, but if it's your bread-and-butter strat, run with it. You'll benefit from slowing down and over-explaining.

-I'm not a fan of tricks, but it's your debate, not mine! I'll do my best to keep up, but I can't vote for an argument I don't understand by the end of the round.

-I've found LD to be more interpersonally prickly/uncomfortable than team debates. Lower the temperature. Be nice. Have some fun.

-Speed is fine but slow down for the start of your speeches, tags, and signposting between arguments. Neither of us want me to miss what you're saying, so help me help you. Once you're into the internals of the card, I am much more permissive.

-If you're going to spread analytics, it is in your best interest to send them in the doc. I won't consciously punish you if you don't, but I may inadvertently punish you if I miss a key warrant because you zipped through it.

-I will never "eval" after any speech besides the 2AR, save for clipping or safety concerns.

-Quality > Quantity for off-case! More than 4-off runs the risk of my flow becoming disorganized. While I am sympathetic to Condo Bad as an argument, I would strongly prefer not having to decide rounds on it.

-I prefer that you don't read frivolous theory arguments. Disclosure theory is not frivolous.

-Speaker Points:

30: You were an astounding speaker and strategist, while demonstrating tact, grace, and good humor through your presence in the round. Your performance represented debate at its best.

29.5-29.9: You sincerely impressed me. You spoke well, and executed your strategy nearly flawlessly with no stone left unturned. I will tell my own students about your performance.

29.1-29.4: Very strong performance; What I'd expect of a 5-1 or 6-0 debater.

28.7-29: Well done; What I'd expect of a 4-2 debater.

28.4-28.6: Default; I'd generally expect you to go 3-3, give or take.

27-28.3: Varying degrees of gaps to fill - keep pushing!

<27: Something happened which warrants a conversation/intervention with your coach

----------

Policy:

-I have a bit lower speed threshold than a lot of circuit policy judges. Start your speeches a bit slower to let me get acclimated to your voice/speed. Me "clearing" you wont affect your speaker points, but it could affect what i'm able to get on my flow.

-I have done very little research on the topic - keep this in mind for acronyms, terms of art, and normal means arguments.

-Clash > Ground > Limits > Predictability

-"Fairness" and "Education" are relatively squishy terms, and I've enjoyed rounds where those terms becomes objects of the debate.

-My favorite K affs have had some degree of relevance to the resolution, whether implicit or explicit. This fact is descriptive, not prescriptive.

-I thoroughly enjoy a good (i.e. well-organized) T debate. I especially enjoy competing interpretations on the substance of the resolution (words other than "Resolved:" and "USFG").

-Quality over quantity for off-case. 4-off is my general threshold for keeping a good flow these days - the cleaner I flow the more effectively i can adjudicate.

-If it happens, so be it, but I'd rather not decide debates on condo.

-Generally, no RVIs.

-Kritiks - I have at least a surface knowledge of most of the popular literature bases. If you're reading something more niche, give me some more explanatory depth. I love when debaters teach me something new!

-Process counterplans aren't cheating, but that doesn't mean they're good.

-Perms are tests of competition.

-I miss A-Spec. (That does not necessarily mean it's a good argument, just a happy nostalgia trigger for me)

-I love judge instruction - write my ballot in the 2N/AR.

-Signpost, Signpost, Signpost!

----------

Public Forum:

-Speed is fine if you're clear and loud

-Collapse on the argument you want written on my ballot

-Kicking an argument is distinct from not addressing an argument

-Weigh links, especially with similar terminal impacts

-Presumption defaults to the side closest to the status quo

-I flow each contention separately - keep that in mind for road maps/signposting

-Kritik and FW/T debates are my favorites - if you want feedback on a critical argument, I'm a good judge for you

-This trend of having a sentence on the wiki serve as "terminal defense" against theory is silly. if you're thinking about theory enough to have a blurb about it on your wiki, I expect you've thought about it enough to have substantive responses

----------

Shanjun Li Montgomery Blair 4 rounds

John Liu Germantown Friends School 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 11, 2024 at 8:03 PM EDT

Add jliu9471@gmail.com to the email chain. You can title the chain as "Round [X] UKSO 2024 [Team name] AFF vs [Team name] NEG," or anything along those lines.

I am currently a student at the University of Louisville. This will be my third time judging a debate tournament. I did public forum debate throughout 4 years of at DuPont Manual High School from 2016-2020 (but none during COVID), so I am somewhat familiar with the forum. That being said, Public forum when I debated vs. the current state of PF has changed dramatically. I recognize that the forum has become more progressive, with a greater emphasis on tech debate and much less on trad, especially at the higher levels. You can treat me as a flay judge, but I have been out of practice for 4 years, and I am much more familiar with judging substance. My paradigm is as follows:

- Tabula rasa; treat me as though I have no knowledge on the topic. I have not done any background research on this topic, so you will need to make your arguments very clear to me.

- Don't spread. Speak clearly and concisely. If you start spreading, I will say 'clear' once and maybe again if you're stubborn; if you continue to spread beyond that point, I will outright stop flowing. People usually ask me what speed their case read should be; generally, I give like a ~900 word limit recommendation. I would much rather flow straight from your speech than ctrl c + ctrl v from a speech doc, (A) So I can understand your argument better and (B) so I know where you cut cards if you decide to omit sections of case.

- Any argument goes, as long as it has a sound link. I have voted for Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk spearheading a revolution south of the US-Mexico border; nothing is too preposterous. If you read Spark and/or Starr just know that that I will slump back in my chair in exasperation.

- I'm not familiar with K's, topicality, or theory. I'll try my best to keep up with them, but run these at your own risk. If you decide to go for these, you will need to walk me through it. I have voted for a K before, but I do not consider myself a competent evaluator for these forms of debate just yet.

- Frontline in second rebuttal. Defense isn't sticky. First still needs to extend. If you are referring directly to a piece of evidence your opponent reads, I emphasize that you read the author name. I.e., "their [Author X] evidence says..." don't just say "their evidence."

- Extensions: I prefer if you collapse on a few arguments in summary and extend those into final focus. When you extend evidence, tell me the card name+date and the link. Don't try to extend your entire case; be strategic and take the path of least resistance to the ballot. Don't extend through ink.

-Weighing: weighing is arguably the most important aspect of a debate round, alongside extensions. Explain to me why your argument outweighs your opponents on scope, magnitude, probability, etc. Additionally, if your opponent is weighing on probability, and you on scope, explain to me why I should prefer your scope argument; weighing needs to be interactive, and well-fleshed out. If you don't end up weighing the impacts of your case or if your weighing is poor, chances are, you will lose the round. I would prefer that you start weighing in summary, but I will still consider weighing initiated in FF.

- Signpost frequently throughout speeches. Off-time road maps are encouraged.

- I'll ask for cards as needed. I would highly encourage you to compile all your evidence before speeches such that we don't waste time combing through multiple files. If you end up spending 3-4+ mins on trying to get evidence sent through the email chain, it will come out of your prep time.

- It should go without saying that racism, sexism, sexual harassment, xenophobia, and the like will not be tolerated. Engage in any of the above and I will give you an auto-loss and you will be swiftly reported to tab.

Cheers

Michelle Luo The Awty International School 7 rounds

Amogh Mahambare Westwood 4 rounds

Satvik Mahendra Plano West Sr High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 14, 2024 at 9:45 AM CDT

email for email chains: satvik.debate@gmail.com

important: i need both teams to send me all docs/evidence that you will be reading in your speeches and please send it in the body of the email

i presume for whoever lost the coin flip unless you tell me otherwise

i will not intervene on arguments not having a warrant unless you call it out. however, just saying "there is no warrant between ___ and ___" will be sufficient for me to not vote on an argument without a warrant. but please warrant your args to make my life easier

make weighing comparative pls. also, if there isn't comparison between different pieces of conceded weighing, i will just intervene for what i think is most important. it will probably something like: link in/prereq w/ timeframe > link in/prereq > magnitude/scope > probability. however, if certain weighing is less comparative than other weighing and there is no comparative between the two pieces of weighing, ill probably just prefer whatever is more comparative.

DONOT read tricks!!!

good with any types of substance arguments and most theory arguments. prob not the best evaluating anything else. if i dont understand the arguments the way you explain them in your speech, then i will not do the work to try to understand them by reading your evidence. that's your job, not mine.

i will not vote for risk of solvency/try or die arguments on policy change topics. it is not sufficient to just say that "the status quo is failing and we have the only risk of solvency" or "it is try or die for the aff". this is lazy debate. make actual warranted arguments that are compelling for me to vote for.

I will vote off the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I will evaluate anything you say as long as it isn't exclusionary or problematic in any way and is properly warranted.

Arguments with warrants and evidence > arguments with warrants but no evidence > arguments with no warrant but evidence > arguments with no warrant or evidence

PLEASE READ: However, I would MUCH MUCH rather you paraphrase all your evidence or read only analytics and have it make sense than read cut cards that are grammatically incoherent, underwarranted, extremely wordy, or incomprehensible. You will be much happier with my decision and the speaker points that you receive as well because if I don't understand the card, I will not be able to properly evaluate it. This will also allow you to be much more efficient by actually explaining your arguments concisely rather than through lengthy, unclear cards, which will let you slow down, implicate, and break the clash, making me even more likely to vote for you.

Summary should not be making new responses to case that were not in rebuttal but frontlines in first summary are fine. Additionally, second summary should not be making new frontlines that were not in second rebuttal. No new arguments are allowed from second summary and onwards except for weighing. However, all weighing must be done during second summary and first final focus at the latest. Second final focus is too late. Also, it is best to start weighing as early as possible.

Second rebuttal should frontline everything from first rebuttal, including defense, on all arguments you plan on going for.

Extensions

You definitely should briefly summarize your argument when extending it but I am not super picky about how in depth the extensions are as long as all parts of the argument are brought up, and especially the link and impact

Be strategic, nice, and persuasive and you will get good speaker points.

Do whatever you want in crossfire, I'm probably not going to be paying attention. Just please be nice.

If you have any questions, please please please ask me before the round starts so that everyone involved has a great experience!

Anmol Malviya Langley 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 3, 2024 at 3:57 PM EDT

he/him - georgetown - add me to the email chain: anmol.malviya0827@gmail.com and label accordingly (tournament, round #, teams).

tldr: I debated on the national circuit for 3 years at Oakton; I currently coach Langley (QL, RC, SG, BG, LJ), BASIS, and McLean. traditional pf judge that's tech>truth, big on thorough execution of fundamentals (weighing, collapsing, efficiency)

Update for TOC

All of the below still applies, but some specific things:

1) My experience with prog this tournament has not been rewarding, and has reminded me that I don't think I'm the best judge to evaluate progressive argumentation. As always, I will try to vote on anything that is explained and warranted and this is not meant to discourage theory/make it seem unviable, but I do not think you should read progressive argumentation with me in the back unless it's an in round safety issue (think CW) where I will intervene!

2) Send case/reb speech docs. Traditional evidence exchanges are incredibly time consuming, this is not optional.

3) Full disclosure -- my ability to evaluate speed has definitely decreased as I've spent time away from the activity but spreading/speed in general is more than fine; as long as you're clear it shouldn't be an issue (I won't flow off of docs)

4) Time yourselves, I don't flow cross, and don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, etc.

non-negotiables

1. be respectful or L20 (be equitable, read anonymous content warnings with ample opt out time, nothing remotely _ist)

2. weigh and compare at every single level to resolve clash and minimize intervention

3. if an argument is dropped in the next speech, it's conceded, and if an argument is not extended, it's not there

4. i have minimal experience with progressive argumentation but am willing to vote on almost anything (no tricks), run at your own risk

other than the above debate how you want - i'll try and adapt to you

ask questions before/after round if you have them, and if there's anything i can do to try and make the round less intimidating/more accessible, please let me know before round or reach out to me via email

Lauren McBlain Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue August 27, 2024 at 11:19 AM CDT

put me on the email chain laurenmcblain28@gmail.com

Lincoln Park (CDL) 16-20

Kentucky 20-25

Accessibility

speak clearly and keep the speed reasonable.

ideally, you send analytics.

i'll call clear 3 times and then i stop flowing.

Policy

No experience on the current topic so don't over rely on acronyms or buzz words

Read whatever you want to read - i'll do my best to evaluate all arguments without bias. I have done all kinds of debate.

Tech > truth (mostly) - I have a lower threshold for silly arguments and think a smart analytic can beat a bad card.

T is good, theory is good, disads are good, counterplans are good, abusive counterplans are good, saying abusive counterplans are bad is good, Ks are good, K affs are good, framework is good. Everything that is not racist/sexist/ableist/and/or homophobic is probably good

Mandatory caveat is that my nightmare is convoluted counterplan competition debates. This is not to say that I will not vote for the CP in these debates, this is just a warning that you will have to slow down and explain why the counterplan competes in no uncertain terms.

my voting record on framework is split 50/50.

i am most persuaded by switch side & think that affs that have thought about why they cannot read their aff on the neg are more likely to win in front of me. Fairness is an impact but needs an internal link (ie clash)

K v K debates are cool and you should probably still make a framework argument about how to evaluate the round. i do not care if perms exist or not in a methods debate.

I AM A VERY BAD JUDGE FOR TRICKS --- READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Everything else from policy probably applies.

get your opponents emails and send your case to them before your speech. if you do not do this, i will make you take prep time for anything that exceeds cross time to send evidence back and forth to each other.

Novice

do line by line, respond to all arguments, and extend all parts of your arguments, split the block on the neg, and narrow down what you go for in the final speeches and you will be golden.

Evidence

I am not a 'cards' person. I think great evidence can make a debate great but I don't think every great debate must read tons of evidence. I prefer explanation over defaulting to read more cards. If you read a great piece of evidence but cannot explain the warrants and how they apply to the debate, and your opponent reads a mediocre piece of evidence and can, I'm more likely to side with your opponent.

Harita Mehta Ravenwood High School 7 rounds

Shivani Mehta Dougherty Valley High School 7 rounds

Brooke Meints Lincoln East High School 4 rounds

Noah Mengisteab Delbarton School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 6:07 AM EDT

Background: He/Him; 3L at NYU Law; previously assistant director/head debate coach at Delbarton (NJ) 2020-2024; current assistant PF coach at Durham Academy (NC) 2024 - Present.

*Tarheel States Notice*:You should consider striking me if you don't cut accurate cards or won't use an email chain. It won't be an auto-loss, but I will consider arguments by opponents if they call out the lack of formatted evidence. The rest of my paradigm will be the same "technical" paradigm.

Email Chains:Please addnmdebaterounds@gmail.com to the email chain with the following subject line: Tournament Name - Rd # - School Team Code (side/order) v. School Team Code (side/order). Teams should send case evidence (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) by the end of constructive – copy and paste all text and send it in the body of the email. The same applies to rebuttal evidence.

Evidence: Even if you paraphrase, I will only evaluate evidence in cut cards. These are properly cut cards. NSDA rules state it's definitive to highlight or mark for identification evidence read, and you need to highlight/mark for paraphrasing (p. 37-38)

Accommodations: Yes, just ask before round.

Main PF Paradigm:

Preflow before the round; speaks start at 28.
Offense > Defense; clear and whole backhalf extensions matter.
Slow down for tags when spreading. If I clear you, then you are no longer saying words -- slow down or annunciate.
Second rebuttal / 1st summary should frontline all turns + their collapsed argument(s).
New weighing in first final is okay, depending on if it’s responsive to 2nd summary. 2nd final can respond to 1st final weighing if it's new.
Please do comparative weighing with timeframe, mag/scope, and probability. I rather not try to evaluate try or die.
Tabula rasa to an extent – longer link chains will still be difficult to vote for and I will intervene on anything blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, or fabricated (i.e., major evidence issues).
Don’t crashout in cross. Put cross-analysis in ink with your speeches.
Trigger warnings with opt-outs are only necessary with graphic depictions or identity-based Ks read. Otherwise, content warnings are generally good. Use your best judgment and follow tournament guidance.

"Progressive" PF: I'm open to the following arguments at any varsity / national circuit tournaments (please not in JV or Novice):

Ks: Run at your own risk, but have judged IR, Cap, Securitization, and Killjoy arguments, but significantly less familiar with high theory lit (i.e., Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche). These will require in-depth explanation throughout the round.
Theory: Topicality, Disclosure, Paraphrasing, and Vague/Utopian Alts, as well as their derivatives/CIs, are fine to read in front of me. I default to competing interps and spirit over interp text. I generally think theory with legitimate violation stories is good, open-source (cut card + tag) disclosure is good, and paraphrasing is bad, but I won't intervene on the flow. However, if your disclosure is unintelligible because you pasted pages of article text, then I am more likely to believe you did not disclose in good faith (open to this as a debate response). Other interps are fine, but if it's frivolous theory (i.e., don't say good luck, shoe theory), I am more likely to intervene.
Introducing excessive off positions in PF (e.g., 4-5) will decrease the chance of a comprehensible RFD.

Cut card evidence ethics and email chain apply.

I've judged LD only a handful of times, but debate is debate. You probably shouldn't go full circuit style, but you certainly don't need to go full-on traditional mode either. However, in either debate style, I will still care about the line-by-line, so consistently respond to defense from prior speeches, crystalize offense, and consistently weigh your link or impact stories.

LARP/T/Theory>Trad > K/Nontopical Ks/Non-T AFFs > Phil/Tricks

More specifics if helpful:

Policy - Advs and DAs are great and what I most prefer. Any Plans/CPs should be specific with their solvency advocate. Very open to spec if any argument is too vague. I think the 2nr is more about crystalizing existing offense than dumping new evidence / impact scenarios, but new answers to 1ar defense make sense. Condo is fine but if it gets too silly then I'm open to hearing the shell.

T - Need to make sure there's good interp weighing/comparison here.

Theory - see PF section above. I am open to judging other interns, too, but the less serious the violation/more friv, the more likely I am to intervene.

Non-T/Planless AFFs - Again, open to judging it, have voted on it before in PF, but there's a risk of losing me, especially in K v K debates.

K - IR, Cap, Securitization, Afropess, Killjoy are fine, but any high theory lit will need significant explanation. Most important is contextualizing your offense while extending -- can't just ignore defense by extending through ink.

Tricks - Strike

Phil - Judged 3 phil rounds in PF, so overall not familiar with most lit; again run at your own risk or be ready to explain it well

Questions? Ask before the round.

Bruce Missell Northview High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 11:25 AM EDT

Hi, I've been doing debate for 8 years. I do a bit of collegiate policy now.

tech > truth unless you’re physically violent or bigoted

TLDR:(1) and (11) under "General Preferences" + (1), (4), and (5) under "On the Flow"

All ev is silly but i’m a big ethan roytman guy so go for it

Yang Gang

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

General Preferences

1) Start an email chain BEFORE the round please. Yes I want to be added at ymcdebate@gmail.com

2) Time yourselves please

3) We don't have to start right away but let's try to get going by the official start time

4) Call me Bruce, Bobby, Judge, Sensei, or Vengeance, I don't really care just don't be disrespectful

5) Don't be a jerk or bigoted pls

6) Quality > Quantity (but do whatever your heart desires)

7) If you're recording pls get everyone's (including mine and the tournaments) approval first

8) I've coached on ICC so IK what's up for the most part but please assume I haven't done any research

9) pls don't steal prep >:(

10) I think the debate space should be more accessible. While I do have coaching obligations, if you're looking for further feedback after the round, want to do redos, want me to look over something, etc, I'm happy to do so just lmk

11) If there's anything I can do to accommodate your needs don't be afraid to reach out or ask

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

On the flow

1) I'm open to voting on any argument so long as it's not racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. DeDev is as equally a valid argument as "SUPs are bad for the environment so we should ban them" is.

2) You should frontline in 2nd rebuttal

3) I'm cool with extrapolation/cross apps as long as they aren't super brand new BUT generally the rule of thumb is if it wasn't in the constructive speeches (or 1st summary) it probably doesn't belong in the back half

4) You need warrants. I don't care if they're good warrants. I don't care if they are you made them up. You just need warrants. You need NEED to have a complete link chain for any offense read. You need to extend 100% of the link chain on any offense you go for. The one thing I'm rude about is having implications and warrants. If you don't give me (and extend) every basic part of the argument I probably won't vote on it. If there's no implication (reason why it matters on my ballot) I probably won't vote on it. FOR EXAMPLE:

"SUPs are bad for us and the environment" Ok? So how does the aff change that??

"Pref neg on timeframe because econ decline happens immediately and climate change takes years" Ok? So why do I care??

If I can ask myself "So what?" on any line of your analysis, you are probably doing something wrong

So PLEASE make sure you have clear extensions and implications. The more specific your internal link and solvency, the better off you'll be.

5) Signpost. I NEED you to signpost. Tell me where you're at and number of responses/frontlines

6) Empirics aren’t responses without a warrant. They prove your side of the argument is more probable but they still need an argument to be paired with.

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

Weighing

1) Weighing should start in the summaries (rebuttal if you're chill like that) so avoid going new in final with it

2) Weighing is great, try to do it (ideally for all offense including turns)

3) Weighing is great but it's a waste of our time if it isn't comparative. Probability is not a real weighing mechanism (90% of the time) and I'm able to tell that 900k deaths is greater than 11 deaths on my own, thank you

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

Progressive Args

Ks:

I did a bit of K debate last year in collegiate policy, did a bit of K debate while still on the HSPF circuit, and coach K teams, so I'm cool with it. A soft left aff is ideal, a topical link is good, but tbh I'll still vote on something 100% non-T if you want me to.

I do like K's that pertain to the debate space (eg some versions of fem, orientalism, afropess, etc) as I'm persuaded by the whole "if debate can only operate through bigotry it probably shouldn't exist" but approach debate bad or debate broken arguments however you feel so inclined.

Generally I think that T-USFG is smarter than a lot of framework arguments in PF mainly because no plans/cp means less room for teams to meet in a way that is reasonable but I've voted on both so go for whatever you think fits better for the round.

My big caveat is that you need to explain EVERY PART of the argument (top to bottom) in basic, easy-to-follow terms. Beyond the fact that I literally might just not get the argument right away, it's still an argument just like any other topical AC/NC. If the extent of your solvency explanation on the alt is "we're an intervention in the word economy of the debate space" I will physically throw a fit. Other than that you're good to go if you want to have a K round.

Theory:

To keep this short: I think debate kind of needs to have a solid foundation in post-fiat args BUT I also don't believe in the idea of arguments being "friv". If you're winning the warrant debate, I see no difference between a disclosure shell and shoe theory. Trix are for kids and that's y'all so have at it. Only three things to note on theory

a) I will hold you to the same standard for a link chain/extension as any other argument. So you have to have the interp, violation, standard (at least the one(s) you go for), impact, and DTD in both back half speeches.

b) I don't believe in this "spirit of the text" nonsense by default. You can 100% make arguments for it, and I'll be 100% tabula rasa about it, but you read what you read so just saying the words "doesn't matter because the spirit of the interp/text" is usually not going to cut it

c) I actually tend to lean towards RVIs good by default so if your opps go for RVIs you have to win the warrant debate on why they shouldn't be considered (ie just saying "no RVIs" isn't going to cut it). Note that this still means that the team going for the RVI needs to warrant why losing the shell is a reason to lose the round.

Other than that, go nuts.

Framing/ROTB:

I have no problem with framing/Decision Criterion in and of itself. However, I DO have a problem with the way that they tend to be run in PF. IF you plan on reading either framing or a ROTB that's completely fine but please do note that

a) There is a difference between a ROTB and framing. If you don't know the difference, don't read a ROTB.

b) Not to beat a dead horse but yk, framing/ROTBs need to be extended (at least in summary and final idrc about rebuttal) with 100% of the warranting you're going for. Saying "extend our structural violence framing about stopping hidden violence" is NOT a proper extension

c) pls don't read framing and then read arguments that don't fit under your framing

d) Even "moral obligation" arguments still require warrants as to why we have a moral obligation to do X

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

Speaker Points

Easy ways to lose speaks:

Repeatedly cut your opponents off
Be rude to anyone in the round
Taking super long to pull up ev
Extending through ink
Not signposting
Calling everything dropped when it's not
Unclear speed

Easy ways to gain speaks:

Efficient LbyL
Having fun with it
Good argument explanation
Signposting well
Good weighing
Smart strategy
A super clean win

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

Evidence

1) I won't look at evidence unless you tell me to and I won't call for evidence unless you tell me to

2) I think evidence should be the arena, not the fight. I will almost always prefer good warrants over good ev

3) Please try to be somewhat honest about ev

4) I'm not the "send all ev before speech" type but I also do think you should have ev ready to go and be willing to share if your opps ask for it

5) I'm letting you know now if you ev challenge in front of me, I have a pretty high threshold for what misrepresentation of ev is worth losing a whole round over. Unless your opponents are doing something legitimately unethical, then be VERY certain about the violation.

6) If there is a clash on evidence, do the ev (and or warrant comparison), don't make me intervene pls

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

FAQ

Can I use speed?Sort of but I have audio processing issues so under three conditions.

a) Don't take it above about 275wpm (the slower the better)

b) You’re clear

c) You send me docs including analytics

d) probably not a smart idea to go fast and read a k

I’ve been doing this for years, have spread many rounds myself, and do policy now but that doesn’t mean I’ll always be perfect, especially considering my API. So while not a huge risk, the faster and less clear you are the more you risk me missing something.

Is defense sticky? iS deFeNSe sTiCky? no. it's not.
Can I read new weighing in final? too late pal (unless its a response to new weighing in summary)
Is cross open? Sure we ball
Why are we still doing this activity? If you find an answer please let me know
Does a split panel change my judging prefs?

nah probably not

Is cross binding? I mean generally yes but you can make arguments as to why it shouldn't be

Utkarsh Mohta East Ridge High School 4 rounds

Eva Motolinia The Blake School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 8:39 AM CDT

es.motolinia@gmail.com and please add blakedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain as well (this is just how Blake keeps track of our chains because otherwise they get lost).

Just send speech docs from case through rebuttal. We don't need to wait for it to come through but it speeds up ev exchange. If you are in a varsity division and don't have a speech doc, pls do better.

TL;DR clean extensions, weighed impacts, and warrant comparison are the easiest way to win my ballot.

I debated for 2 years in the UDL at Clara Barton and 4 years in PF at Blake (both in MN). Please don't mistake me for a policy judge, I was only a novice and didn't do any progressive argumentation. I have been judging for 5 years.

My judging style is tech but persuasion is still important. I prefer a team that goes deeper on key issues (in the 2nd half of the debate) rather than going for all offense on the flow. There can/ should be a lot on the flow in the 1st half of the debate but not narrowing it down in summ and FF is extremely unstrategic and trades off with time to weigh your arguments and compare warrants.

Use evidence, quote evidence, and we won't have a problem. Don't paraphrase and don't bracket. Bad evidence ethics increases the probability that I will intervene against you, especially in messy debates. I'll start your prep if you take longer than 2 minutes to find and send a card.

Responding to defense on what you're going for and turns is required in the 2nd rebuttal. Obviously respond to all offense in second rebuttal, new responses to offense in second summary will not carry any weight on my ballot. I am very reluctant to accept a lot of new evidence in the 2nd summary because it pushes the debate back too much. (Note: I still accept a warrant clarification or deepening of a warrant/ analysis because that is separate from brand new evidence.)

Defense needs to be in first summary. With 3 minutes, summaries don't have an excuse anymore to be mediocre. Bottom Line: If it is not in summary then it cannot be in final focus. If it is not in final focus then I will not vote on it.

In order to win, you gotta weigh. The earlier you start the weighing, the better. I don't like new mechanisms in 2nd FF (1st FF is still a bit sketch. I am fine with timeframe, magnitude, probability new in the 1st FF but prerequ should probably come sooner). The 2nd speaking summary has a big advantage so I don't accept that there is no time to weigh. It is fine if the summary speaker introduces quick weighing and the final focus elaborates on it in final focus (especially for 1st speaking team). If both teams are weighing, tell me which is the preferable weighing mechanism. Same for framework. Competing frameworks with no warrant for why to prefer either one becomes useless and I will pick the framework that is either cleanly extended or that I like better.

I vote on warrants and CLEAN extensions. A proper extension in the 2nd half of the round is the card name, the claim+ warrant of the card and the implication of the card. Anything short of this is a blippy extension, meaning I give it less weight during my evaluation of the flow. Name of the card is the least important part of the extension for me so don't get too caught up on that, it will just help me find the card on the flow.

I vote on the path of least resistance, if possible. That means that I am more inclined to vote on a dropped turn than messy case offense. But turns need to be implicated, I won't vote on a turn with no impact. Even if your opponent drops something, you still have to do a full extension (it can be quicker still but I don't accept blippy extensions).

You can speak fast, but I would like a warning. Also, the faster you speak, the less I will get on the flow. Just because I am a tech judge, does not mean I am able to type at godly speeds. Don't sacrifice persuasion, clarity, or argumentation for speed otherwise it will be counterproductive for the debate and (possibly) your speaker points. Sending a speech doc (before or after the speech) does not mean that you can be incomprehensible. I still need to be able to understand you verbally, I will not follow the speech doc during your speech.

I am still learning when it comes to judging/ evaluating theory and Ks. I am more familiar with ROB but still need a slower debate with clear warranting. I am more familiar with Ks than theory but never debated either so the concepts are taking me longer to internalize. You can run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I understand a lot of basic ideas when it comes to theory argumentation but your warranting and extensions will have to be even more explicit for me to keep up. I am in favor of paraphrasing bad and disclosure good theory. I don't have many opinions on RVIs or CI vs reasonability so you should clearly extend warrants for those args.

IVIs are silly and avoid clash. If there is abuse, read theory. If there is a rule violation, stop the round.

Similarly, any sort of strategy that avoids clash is a non starter for me and I will give it less weight on my flow. An example of this is reading one random card in your contention that doesn't connect to anything, then it becomes an argument of its own in the back-half with 3 pieces of weighing.

Also, be nice to each other (but a little sass never hurt anyone). Still, be cognizant of how much leeway you have with sass based on power dynamics and the trajectory of the round/ tone of the room. Sass does not mean bullying.

Take flex prep to ask questions or do it during cross. Essentially, a timer must be running if someone is talking (this excludes quick and efficient ev exchange). You don't get to ask free questions because the other team was too fast or unclear.

If I pipe up to correct behavior during a round, you have annoyed me and are jeopardizing your speaker points. I have a poker face when I observe rounds but am less concerned about that when judging so you can probably read me if I am judging your round.

Sometimes messy rounds will come down to nitpicky things so here are some clarifications:

Warranted Cards > warranted analytics > unwarranted cards > unwarranted analytics

Qualified source and author > qualified source only> qualified author only > no qualified author or source

Link +impact extension > Link with no impact > impact with no link

Comparative weighing > weighing that is only about your impact > weighing that is about opponents impact only

I only have this list because some rounds have come down to each team doing one of these things so this list explains where/ how I intervene when I need to resolve a clash of arguments that were not resolved in the debate.

If the tournament and schedule allows, I like to disclose and have a discussion about the round after I submit my ballot. Ask me any questions before or after the round.

Sully Mrkva Lynbrook HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 6:04 AM EDT

Sully Mrkva

“There is a house. One enters it blind and comes out seeing. What is it?” --- Tell me the answer.

add me to the email chain: Manlybros11@gmail.com

Brentwood High '22 / VT '26: Debated for Four Years - Won TOC, Auto-Qualed to TOC 2x and Nats 1x. I'm now the assistant director for the Debate Drills Club Team and NSD PF camps.

TLDR: Tech>Truth that will vote on anything that is not _ist.

I love debate. Take a deep breath, don’t be aggressive, and have some fun dawgs - I invested thousands of hours into this activity and know how important it is to some people - I GET YOU - leave it all on the flow and don’t be a chungus.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

-General-

It’s MY job to adapt to you - if there’s anything you need before round to help make it more accessible or have any questions - email me or ask me before round.
Don’t be a jerk - Debate Rounds can get very heated - try to maintain your composure and “pretend to be sincere.” ALSO - if you are absolutely COOKING a team - don’t add fuel to the fire - treat a novice team with the same respect that you would give the #1 team ranked in the nation, if you don’t, you’re in for a low speaks win.
Unless the tournament says otherwise, I will disclose and give my RFD.
Feel free to postround (time permitting ofc). For newer debaters and anyone who wants help - ask me if there’s something better you could have done on argument x during the round to win my ballot - I will give my best critiques as possible to improve your skill into the future (I always loved judges who did this for me).
Second Rebuttal must frontline all offense and weighing - otherwise it’s conceded. Offense YOU are going for in the back half must also be frontlined - i.e. if you are going for a contention with 3 pieces of defense and a turn on it - you must frontline all of that in one way or another for me to evaluate it in the back half. (during tech rounds I used to frontline entire case and then go vroom vroom on their case - I think this is very strategic and if you do it well - I’ll give a speaks boost)
No Sticky Defense. Even if it is conceded, extend it.

-Substance-

Extend Warrants. For offense you are going for - whether that be a turn, DA, case argument, etc. I need a warranted extension that isn’t some blippy 5 second extension - if it's FULLY conceded, my threshold for this is a bit lower.
Summary -> FF mirror. Anything in FF has to be in summary. Case arguments, defense, offense, weighing all need to be explained and extended in summary for me to evaluate it at the end of the round. Exception to this rule is if a team reads new weighing in 2nd summary, you can respond to that in 1st FF. Structure of speeches can be different between summ and ff - just no different content. 2nd FF cheese will not work on me.
Frontlining. I love when teams frontline entire case in 2nd rebuttal - that is, if they do it well, if you can’t reach the efficiency level and blip storm supreme through the first 1:30 of rebuttal, it’s not gonna bode well for you on the flow. More broadly, frontlines need to be directly interactive with the argument you are responding to, give me reasons why to break the clash, postdates, warrant comparison, etc - or it’s gonna make the debate wayyyyyyyyy closer than it needs to be. Lastly, cross-applying conceded frontlines from different parts of the flow to another in back-half speeches is perfectly fine, the flow is a toolbox, not a map.
Rebuttal Responses. You can go as fast as you want, as long as there is a warrant that I can pinpoint and explain back to myself during my decision. Do not spam DA’s that are masked as turns that aren’t actually responsive to the link, you can give an all offense rebuttal - but make sure you are interacting with your opponent on the link level. Respond to impacts - one of weakest parts of current circuit tech debate is teams focusing too hard on link-level responses and flat out dropping their opps’ impact scenarios in even the most high-level rounds. Do this in rounds I judge you and adopt this in future ones - trust me, it’ll make a world of difference.

-Weighing-

Carded weighing is GASSSS.

Make your weighing comparative. Just asserting that your argument is empirically proven or has a higher magnitude is the bare minimum and is the most basic way to grab a ballot. To be confident that you won mine, prove why your opponents don’t meet the weighing threshold, but you do - I.E your argument happened empirically, but their link was historically disproven. Most importantly, compare link-ins - just explaining why your argument link-ins to their impact doesn’t give you offense, it at best non-uniques their scenario - explain why you have a better link into their impact to generate round-winning weighing. META WEIGH - if two teams are giving different weighing mechanisms without any comparison, it’s gonna force me to intervene, prob over mag, visa versa, etc. makes the round ez for me to evaluate and by extension ez-ier for you to W.
Frontline yours and Respond to theirs. Don’t shuffle deck chairs on the titanic. If your opponents respond to your weighing, you need to frontline it in the proceeding speech and extend that frontline or otherwise you won’t have access to that weighing. This goes both ways - respond to your opponents weighing, or theirs is conceded. A really good “weigh” to win my ballot is to handle weighing at the top of your speech - it’s the most important aspect of the flow and crystalizes the round for tech judges.
Have Fun with it. Don’t be afraid to give strategic and smart link-ins, don’t stick to magnitude, probability, scope, etc. Link-ins and short circuits at both the impact and link level are by far the most effective forms of weighing. I like extinction outweighs or extinction comes first weighing - speaker boost incoming if you do this.
Fake Weighing. Strength of link weighing, Clarity of impact, Clarity of link is BS and not actual weighing - just analysis of the level of ink on your case that’ll be obvious when I look down on my flow. This weighing isn’t convincing - don’t waste your time reading it.

-Theory / Prog-

I’ll vote on theory - Default RVIS and reasonability. I didn’t read a single progressive argument in my debate career but had my fair share of rounds hitting Ks, theory, tricks, etc. So I know how to evaluate. BUTTTTT - if you are clearly reading theory to get an easy W against a new team expect your speaks tanked and if you are reading some friv stuff that is obviously just a 7-eleven quality shell I will have an extremely high bar for you throughout the round.
I’ll vote on Ks. I can evaluate Pf level K debate and vote correctly. I’ll evaluate everything directly off the flow and be completely tabula rosa - which I believe is of utmost importance ESPECIALLY in prog/K rounds.
I Like substance more. I’ve always been a substance guy - so don’t read prog just because you have a tech judge. If this is your topic strat, there is an actual violation, etc. RUN IT and I’m all ears.

-Speaks-

Be Chill, Be fluent, easy to follow, and strategically smart - that’s my recipe for good speaks.
Some of my favorite debaters are Sri Chilukuri, Anoosh Kumar, Anuraag Routray, and Max Wu - I vibe with these debaters’ style - this is meant to give you a gauge on what I like.
Be assertive in cross - don’t let your opponents walk over you and don’t be afraid to call them out if they are ranting and giving a mini rebuttal.

-Fun Stuff-

If you made it all the way down here - thank you!

Jayant Namdhari Richard Montgomery High School 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 4:52 AM EDT

namdhari@umich.edu

Update for TOC 2024:

I haven't debated in a minute but here's my background: Did PF for 1.5 years, switched to LD my senior year and qualified to the TOC. Since college, I haven't actively competed / judged PF occasionally, my overall preferences / views on debate haven't changed significantly but I'd place a significantly higher emphasis on deep research and evidence quality. Additionally, my tolerance for tricks / friv theory / clash evasive strategies is generally a lot lower than it used to be -- that being said I'm probably still more receptive to this than most PF judges and won't hack against it, just might not be as good at judging these rounds and will over-reward high-level strategic round vision in these debates.

With that in mind the below paradigm is largely up to date, and happy to answer any questions in round or prior via email.

Things that might need to have more emphasis given how long it's been since I debated (especially for PF):

1] Clarity -- please signpost clearly and slow down a little on taglines, I don't flow off the doc and won't go back unless you've marked cards.

2] Overviews / Round Vision -- Tell me what you're going to do before you do it, even if this is just 3 seconds of "High risk of a DA outweighs a mitigated case" at the top of the 2NR, it helps me know what's happening strategically, don't feel the need to overdo this compared to other rounds but if you don't do this already, try to do it (I promise other judges will also thank you with speaks boosts!)

3] Packaging / Simplicity -- In and out of debate I've realized that regardless of how complex arguments are going in, the hallmark of competence is being able to explain it simply. I used to be more on the side of thinking I'm stupid in these debates when the 2nr/2ar is unclear and going back through cards, rereading taglines and overviews to try and get an understanding of what was said. Today, I'll err more on the side of punishing you for long jargon-filled overviews, extension blocks that aren't tailored to the round and not being able to explain/contextualize your arguments in a simple way

4] I don't know the topic lol

5] I don't know if evidence ethics / file sharing standards in PF have gotten better over the years but I have absolutely zero tolerance -- send out docs (don't waste time/steal prep asking for cards) and don't miscut/paraphrase.

Paradigm:

I don't think you should worry about reading this too closely, I'll evaluate any argument however you tell me to in round and I will try to be as tab as possible butI do have biases which while I can try to keep them out of debate, some will implicitly be present and I feel like it would be better for me to make you aware of them rather than pretend they don't exist.

TL/DR: These are just my preferences as to what I believe is good for debate I won't default one way or another unless there is absolutely no pushback from either side.

Regardless, a ranking of how familiar I am with things:

Policy/K/T - 1

T-FW/K Affs - 1

Theory - 2

Phil - 2

Dense Phil/ Pomo read as an NC - 3/4

Tricks - 4/5

K vs K debates -- 4/5 (I like them but I'm a coinflip heavily weighted towards the perm)

K Affs vs FW

- Been on both sides and these are my favorite debates to judge however I probably do lean slightly neg.

- CI's are good to resolve some offense and provide uqs for an impact turn but it's not necessary.

- 2N's need to do a better job winning the terminal impact to FW, don't overinvest into reading long blocks that explain why the aff is unfair/decks clash because let's be honest, they aren't gonna contest that most of the time, focus on implicating why that is important both in the context of debate and in the context of the affirmative.

- Framework 2nr's I've thought were excellent often use the same verbiage as the aff instead of using long o/v blocks.

- TVA/SSD to resolve some offense is good, even if it doesn't

- 7 minute 2nr's entirely on the case page often get confusing for me when they lack good judge instruction -- try and be clear as to what you are doing on teh case page before you get into the lbl

- good for larp v k

- bad for k v k (biased towards the perm + often get confused a lot); if I do end up unfortunately judging one of these, judge instruction is paramount. I will evaluate these debates generally knowing that theories of power are largely compatible. So, my ballot will be a reflection of differences between the aff and the alternative and the impact to those differences. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is worse than the aff, I vote aff. If the difference between the two indicates the alt is better than the aff, I vote neg.

- lbl > long o/v's

- Framework CI = you don't need an alt unless the aff says you do and winning links is sufficient if you've won framework

- Alts that result in the aff are fine absent a 1ar warrant why they aren't (being shady in cx is kinda annoying tho)

- Only understand cap, Moten/Harney, Warren (never read this in round), and a little bit of Baudrillard -- explanation is good.

- All the interactions that people consider "k tricks" should be implicated in the 1nc or else 2ar answers are justified (saying lines in the card make the claim most often doesn't really count)

LARP

- Like this a lot

- UQS prolly controls link direction

- all cp theory can be dtd granted a warrant

- hate reading cards and I will stay away from it as much as possible but end up having to read ev in most rounds.

- defense is underrated and can def be terminal if implicated as such (i.e: bill alr passed prolly is terminal)

- solves case explanation can be new in the 2nr as long as it was in 1nc evidence

- perm shields the link/cp links to nb -- explain these args to me! I'm not v smart/takes me time esp since I don't know the topic lit most likely

Phil

- Haven't read anything besides util/Kant and a little prag -- think it's hella interesting doe if that counts for anything

- Weighing is important, spend more time explaining your syllogism and why that excludes theirs.

- TJF's prolly o/w and are the move if I'm in the back

- weird complex ev mandates not-weird not-complex explanation

Theory

- Like this

- Weigh between standards

- low threshold to vote on rvis -- still need to justify them and w/e

- reasonability should be explained and is v strategic at times -- I will not vote on an RVI if you are going for reasonability obviously

Tricks

- will vote on these as long they are implicated fully in the speech they are read

- I can't flow for my life so like try and slow down a Lil bit

Evidence Ethics

- did pf for 2 years, cut cards weren't a thing, people paraphrased, the average card was shorter than T definitions, and evidence was sent via url's + ctrl F -- I really don't care at all about ev ethics until it's mentioned but i'm p sure my standards for ev ethics are very stringent so if you do call it out/stake the round on it in PF you will probably win 90% of the time

- if staking the round, that should happen the moment the violation is called out. -- don't read a shell and debate it out until the 2ar and then decide you wanna stake the round instead

(i.e: Miscut 1AC ev means you should stake the round immediately after you see it BUT at the very latest after 1nc cross)

Misc:

- I'm cool with post rounding -- not cool w/aggressive or toxic post rounding

- Clear judge instruction is really helpful

- Hate it when people steal prep

- hate unclear signposting

- Record your speeches in case audio cuts out

- time yourself and stop at the timer. (pls)

Henry Nomeland Lakeville North High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2024 at 4:36 AM CDT

henrynomeland@gmail.com

Debated circuit PF for Lakeville. I study Statistics and research Speech Sciences at UW-Madison. Briefly did instructing/coaching after High School.

UPDATED FOR BLAKE

I'm probably out of paper - would appreciate extra printer paper if you've got it.

UPDATED FOR 2024

PLEASE be chill and nice to everyone in crossfire and during speeches. Loudness, impoliteness, etc. is an easy way to get low speaks.

I flow extensions and care about them being good.

Avoid going for multiple case arguments in summary.

Speed up evidence/speech doc exchanges please. Don't steal prep.

I prefer debaters who call out their opponent’s mistakes. Having a debater tell me to vote because of a particular mistake their opponent made is always preferred over me having to personallyweigh which of the mistakes made in the round is the worst.

If everyone is making mistakes, I generally try to give each side some risk of offense and attempt to vote off of clash/defense/weighing. If there's no clash and no weighing I will be sad.

Prog Stuff

I would seriously prefer to judge a substance round. I don't understand postmodernism, philosophy, and the state of debate discourse over the past three years nearly well enough to judge these issues as accurately as many other judges. This being said, I will vote for reasonable arguments that you win and weigh. See Bryce's paradigm below for more thoughts on this stuff which I generally agree with.

Rant about impacts and why more teams should read niche, small-scale arguments:

The thing that excites me the most in a debate round is when a team starts talking about an issue I have never heard about in my entire life. If you've only been doing debate for a year or two I get that you may have never debated about green tech or drones or rare-earth metals, but plenty of judges including myself aren't exactly enthralled by these debates anymore. I really enjoy arguments which link into smaller-scale impacts (think stuff about train infrastructure, or cultural dance practices, or lemur habitats, or endangered languages, or deep-space research). Too many teams are intimidated by the prospect of weighing cultural or environmental impacts against standard quantifiable impacts like poverty and war. I think there are lots of compelling reasons that specific cultural impacts are extremely important, the first and foremost being that they shine a light on groups of people who are too often ignored or lumped into massive groups, which I personally feel dehumanizes debate and makes everything feel very mechanical.

All of this being said, if you go for a very small and specific impact, I do expect you to do some very good weighing. If the other team reads nuke war and yells about how death is irreversible in every speech, and you don't do any weighing of your case about Badminton, you will unfortunately probably lose (but also maybe get perfect speaker points). Your best bet is to begin weighing early - in case or rebuttal. Use evidence in your weighing if possible.

I genuinely don't care about quantifying impacts. I know that a regional conflict or natural disaster would cause death and destruction. Exactly how many people would be affected is both impossible to know and not entirely relevant. What's actually relevant to my decision is how likely your impact scenario is, how much we can hope to prevent or mitigate it, and why the people being affected should be acknowledged specifically.

Note that when I say "niche small-scale arguments" I am talking about arguments which are unique from the link level all the way to the impact level. I don't mean having a quirky link into the same escalation scenario everyone else is using, or having a funny niche impact at the end of your stock deterrence argument. These sorts of arguments, while fun, are easy to respond to and don't really get to the point, as your opponents will just respond to the part that they've prepped out and dodge the interesting part.

TL;DR - If you've been afraid to read your scorpion venom contention, the time is now. I'm so prepared to vote to save 500 people dying of scorpion bites.

Other Stuff

These people taught me debate:

Bryce Piotrowski

Maddie Cook

Gus Gerlach

Sonya Patel Lynbrook HS 5 rounds

Bryce Piotrowski Seven Lakes High School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 17, 2024 at 1:09 PM CDT

-- Paradigm

Debate is a competitive research activity. The team that can most effectively synthesize their research into a defense of their plan, method, or side of the resolution will win the debate. During rounds, this means that you should flow the debate, read good arguments based in good evidence, and narrow the focus of the debate as early as possible. I would strongly prefer to evaluate arguments that are grounded in the most recent and academically legitimate topical research of any kind, as opposed to theory or a recycled backfile. I won't hack against arguments just because I dislike them, but your speaker points will likely suffer. The best debaters are a compelling mix of persuasive, entertaining, strategic, and kind.

-- Biography

he/him

School Conflicts: Seven Lakes (TX), Lakeville North (MN), Lakeville South (MN), Blake (MN), and Vel Phillips Memorial (WI)

Individual Conflicts: Jason Zhao (Strake Jesuit), Daniel Guo (Strake Jesuit)

I run PFBC with Christian Vasquez of the Blake School. I'll also be conflicting any current competitors not affiliated with the programs listed above that have been offered a staff position at PFBC this summer. You can find a current list of our staff at our website.

Experience: I've coached since 2016. I've been at Seven Lakes since 2020 and have been the Director of Speech and Debate there since 2021. Before that, I coached debate at Lakeville North/South (MN) and did NPDA-style parliamentary debate at Minnesota in college (think extemp policy). A long time ago I did PF and Congress in high school. Most of my experience is in circuit PF and Congress, but I coach all events.

-- Logistics

The first constructive speech should be read at or before the posted round start time. Failure to keep the tournament on time will result in lower speaker points.

Put me on the email chain. You don't need me there to do the flip or set one up. Use sevenlakespf@googlegroups.com. For LD/CX - replace "pf" with "ld" or "cx".

The subject of the email chain should clearly state the tournament, round number and flight, and team codes/sides of each team. For example: "Gold TOC R1A - Seven Lakes AR 1A v Lakeville North LM 2N".

If you're using the Tabroom doc share/Speechdrop, that's also fine. Just give me the code when I get to the room.

-- Misc

I'd love to have you at PFBC this summer. Application is on our website.

I've kept a running list of old thoughts and paradigms since 2021 housed at this link. I think very little of it will affect how I judge your debate.

William Pirone College Prep 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 19, 2024 at 9:53 PM PDT

Berkeley Update:

Sending stuff on email chains comes out of your prep. This is non-negotiable.

* * * * *

I debated for three years on the national circuit for College Prep. I now privately coach.

Add me to the email chain: wpirone@stanford.edu .

General:

Tech > Truth. Argue whatever you want. I’ve judged everything from tricks to absurd consult CPs—run what you're comfortable with. I enjoy creative arguments.

Go as fast as you want but be clear. I don’t flow from the doc but take one for reference. Speed ≠ argument density—if I miss something in summary or final focus, that’s on you. I’m also facially expressive—use that to gauge argument strength.

Label email chains properly, e.g. “TOC R1 – College Prep HP (Aff 1st) vs. LC Anderson BC (Neg 2nd)”

I aspire to judge similarly to Ilan Ben-Avi, Ishan Dubey, and Ryan Jiang.

Substance:

No need to extend conceded internal links in later speeches. One-sentence extensions are great, spend time breaking clash instead.

"No warrant" is not a response. Explain why they're wrong.

Link weighing > impact weighing. Make sure to resolve clashing link-ins/prereqs.

Theory:

This is fine. Respond in any way you wish—meta-theory, interp flaws, and impact turns are all fine with me.

I default to text > spirit, CI > R, No RVIs, DTA.

If you do choose to disclose, do it right. Genuinely think disclosure bad is a more persuasive argument than full texting > OS.

I will evaluate topical kritiks but I'm not a huge fan. I'm relatively comfortable with Baudrillard, biopolitics, cap, imperialism, and security.

Re. framing, I am never going to vote for a “we started the discourse” link or arguments about how your opponents cannot link in.

Your opponents conceding the text of your ROTB is not a TKO. You still need to win the clash on your argument.

CPs:

I wouldn't read these unless you have a compelling theoretical argument as to why you should be able to do so.

FW:

Util is most likely truetil, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Tricks:

These are fun, just don't hide them. I prefer judging paradoxes and skep over tricks like ROTO and "eval after 1ac."

Presumption:

Absent warrants otherwise, I always default to the first speaking team.

Most importantly, have fun! Let me know before/after the round if you have any questions or want extra feedback.

—WP

Zach Pogany Harrisburg High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 14, 2024 at 2:50 PM CDT

I am the Director of Debate at Sioux Falls Roosevelt High School in South Dakota.

Email:zcpogany@gmail.com

Please include me on any email chains prior to the round starting.

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:

I feel like my primary goal in adjudicating debates is to have to do the least amount of work possible. If I have to do the work for you, it’s probably going to be a decision you don't like.

In terms of an actual "paradigm" or framework for how I evaluate debates, I don't really have one. I'm generally cool with whatever you all want the round to be. However, there are a few things about me to note that might be helpful to you:

-In my older age I've become a little bit more hard of hearing then I thought I would. So please speak up. If you don't, I probably won't have flowed everything you've said

-I flow on paper

-Speed is cool with me but realistically on scale of 1-10 (10 being the fastest round ever) I'm probably a 6.5-7

-I don't flow author names and dates. If you're referencing /cross applying evidence cite specific analysis.

-Tech over truth always.

-The arguments I feel most comfortable evaluating are what some would consider more "traditional arguments". However, that's not to say I won't listen to or evaluate progressive argumentation. In fact, I've judged quite of few of these rounds this year and have thoroughly enjoyed them. When going this route, please slow down as much as you can and be clear in what the argument is and how my ballot functions.

-Theory debates are pretty hit or miss for me. I need to have some sort offense or reason as to what your reading warrants my consideration.

-Do not post round me. I have no problem answering any questions or clarifying anything in my decision but the second you are combative I will walk out of the room.

-Ultimately, you should have fun and learn from debate. Don't do anything in the round takes away from either of those things.

Feel free to ask me anything else before the round starts!

Policy Debate:

I have not judged very many rounds on this topic.

I'm trying to revitalize this event at my school and my state so I thank you for letting me be apart of the rounds you are competing in! I will be learning a lot.

If I am not told how to evaluate the debate, I will default to a very basic offense/defense paradigm.

LD:

I very rarely judge this event. LD debate in South Dakota is very traditional.

Most of the information I have posted above is probably going to be useful to you in terms of framing my LD ballot. I have no predisposition to how an LD round should go but here are my specific preferences for LD (1 meaning I love it and 4 meaning I don't love it):

Tricks- Absolutely not

Ks-1

Policy/LARP- 1

Philosophy- 4

T/Theory-4

PF:

I competed in public forum my senior year where I primarily debated in my local South Dakota circuit. My first three years I was a policy debater.

Most of what I mentioned in prior sections should be helpful to you in this event as well.

I love a good framework debate. Just make sure you utilize that as a way to make me evaluate your arguments vs your opponent's. Reference it throughout the round. Too many times I see teams read framework and then never utilize it ever again

Make sure you have extensions throughout the round of the arguments you will be going for. I need to understand the link story and how it resolves the offense. If I don't, you probably won't win the round.

When using evidence, make sure it is clearly cited and read. Additionally, when opponents ask for evidence you should have it ready to give to them. There is nothing that upsets me more than waiting an excessive amount of time for evidence to be handed over. If I feel like it is getting excessive I will warn you once, after that I will start taking prep/speech time.

Veer Prakash Taipei American School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 21, 2024 at 5:37 AM EDT

I did PF for four years at Durham Academy. I'm a sophomore at NYU Stern, and I coach for Charlotte Latin.

Put me on the email chain: vp2150@nyu.edu and charlottelatindebate@gmail.com

TLDR: I'll vote on the flow. Read whatever you want, but please make sure it's warranted properly instead of blippy arguments. I look at weighing/framing first and then evaluate the best link into said weighing.

Debate should be fun. Yes, debate is a competitive activity, but don't be condescending. Enjoy every round.

To win an argument, it must be fully extended in both summary and final focus, i.e. the uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impact with warrants on each of those levels. If it is not, I will not vote on it.

Signpost AND IMPLICATE. please. Nothing new past summary.

Cross is binding, but bring it up in speech if something important happens.

Go as fast as you want as long as you're clear. Send a doc, don't clip, and remember you're allowed to yell "clear" if your opponents are incomprehensible.

Defense is not sticky — respond to everything the previous speech said. Everything in the first rebuttal must be responded to in second rebuttal or it will be considered conceded. Similarly, everything in second rebuttal must be responded to in first summary, including weighing.

Theory: I have read theory, but I think that it is most often used in PF in a way that significantly decreases accessibility for the entire space. I will evaluate theory, but only if your opponents know how to engage with those arguments. Please do not be the team that reads 4 off on novices for the ballot.

Read whatever shells you want to read but interps should be read in the speech immediately following the violation.

My threshold will be low on stuff that’s obviously frivolous. If you're going to have a tricks debate or anything that resembles it, it's probably best to make sure everyone's comfortable with that decision beforehand.

Ks: Don't steal it off of some policy or LD wiki page. Good Ks are really good, and bad Ks are REALLY bad. Do your own research and make the round accessible by explaining implications that you do based on the literature. I want to understand the argument if I'm going to vote on it.

Kyle Quinlan Fairview HS 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon June 17, 2024 at 1:57 AM MDT

Kyle - He/Him/His

Updated for NSDA Nats, if I'm judging you in CO it's obviously less strict but I still have preferences :)

My email is kyle.quinlan6045@gmail.com. Please add me to an email chain. Flashing seems to be especially important with online debate. Use a descriptive subject line to help me keep track of rounds. Note I will not pull up the doc to follow in round, but want your evidence to read if needed.

I did CX and PF in high school.

PF (CX is going to be similar vibe):

I'm a flow judge. You'll probably be best adapting as if I'm flay - I strongly prefer slower, well warranted argumentation with a clear collapse. In general I prefer traditional debate, but I'll definitely listen to a progressive round. I don't have any super strong preconceptions of what your round should look like. Don't lie about evidence (paraphrasing is fine). I use an offense-defense paradigm to help me evaluate who won. Make sure you at least win some offense. Defense alone never wins rounds (unless you fully unironically have terminal defense on everything and make a case for why I vote your side on presumption). I will flow everything but cross, but I'll still pay attention and jot down notes if something important happens. Also my preference for case format is a doc with a paraphrased version that you read and then all cut cards included below it, but that's just a preference so do whatever you want.

Some extra stuff

1. Front Lining is necessary. If you're speaking second, you need to defend your own case in rebuttal. If you leave your side of the flow empty going into summary, you just dropped all your opponents attacks on your case. I used to disagree with this, but second speaker is a huge advantage otherwise and I think this makes for better debates. Feel free to drop a contention so you can do more attacks, but you have to front line or you'll almost certainly lose the round.

2. Please collapse. We both know you aren't winning everything, and you don't need to win everything to win the round. Just tell me what you are winning and why that should win you the round.

3. Analytics. You don't need a card to make an argument. Strong, specific card > strong, specific analytic > weak card. Just make good arguments

4. Speed is fine, but if your opponents ask you before or during the round to slow down try to honor that. Debate should be accessible.

5. Tech > Truth. I will try my hardest not to step in and do any work for either side. The bar is much much lower for you to respond to a bad argument, but you still need to respond.

6. Theory in PF is kinda lame, but there is a place for it and I'll give you the ballot if you actually win it. Bar is lower to respond in PF w/ shorter speeches but again, you still need to respond.

7. Evidence calls shouldn't take too long (like 2 minutes tops). If you can't find the card I'm just dropping that argument. Be able to show your opponents the quote you use and a little context around it. That being said, if you're paraphrasing in case and you heavily misrepresent or outright lie about evidence, I will most likely just give you the L. Let me know at the end if you think your opponent did this and I'll read a card or two and make a decision.

If you have any more questions, just ask me before the round. If you want more feedback after a round just email me and I'll probably tell you more. Be nice and have fun :)

Random stuff I'll keep adding as I watch rounds:

1. Time yourself, I'll forget.

2. If I'm timing I'll just stop listening after ~5 seconds over time. If I forgot to start a timer just stop your opponent when they're like 10 seconds over.

3. Cross is usually zzz. I'm listening but I'm not flowing so if something important happens say it again when I am flowing :))

Aruna Ramachandran Sharon 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 6:43 AM EDT

I've been a lay judge for a couple years now and enjoy it but still consider myself new-ish to judging. I've learned a lot from you all!

Consider sharing evidence directly on your device- it's the fastest. If you prefer emailing please include me-- raruna@yahoo.com

Please title the email chain in a way that includes the round, flight (if applicable), both team codes, sides, and speaking order.

Judging philosophy

1. I am a scientist by training (PhD) and value logic, cogent arguments, supporting evidence, weighing, warrants and impact, combined with clear delivery and thoughtful presentation of ideas. You can collapse or not, I don't have a preference, as long as it makes sense. If you're collapsing, please weigh so I can understand why your impact is more valid than the other team's.

2. Clash is awesome but be respectful. You can be classy, even when you are passionately defending your perspective. It's a great life skill.

3. Try not to speak too fast. Medium-fast is ok but if you spread I may (will) not follow. If I miss your point I can't evaluate it. Please signpost- that would be appreciated.

4. Again, I value impacts (meaningful impacts, not far-fetched ones) and warrants and especially appreciate weighing.

5. Avoid jargon. It might mystify me.

6. NO theory, K's, etc! I DO NOT understand the highly technical aspects of debate and would not be able to judge those.

General

7. Rules. Just follow the ground rules, please (time, prep, collegiality, no new arguments later in the round, etc etc). It makes for a fun and fair debate. You can (and should be) be strong and passionate speakers but you don't want to be that team that won the round but made it a miserable experience for everyone else in the room (including the judge).

6. TIME. Part of Rules (#7) but important enough to warrant its own section. Stick to time. Please. We both have rounds to go on to so keep each other and yourself honest. Be ready with and quick to share evidence and cards (I'm flexible within reason). I keep time but occasionally forget to, so don't depend on me. I will stop flowing a few (5-10) seconds after your time ends. Be professional and don't try to game the system (draining opponents' time by asking for a dozen pieces of evidence/squeezing in prep time, etc). It's annoying and I'll see through it.

7. I'm judging you but I am also supporting you. I recognize the hard work this sport takes, to think on your feet and construct and deliver persuasive arguments under time pressure and to be judged critically. I'll do my best to provide thoughtful feedback.

Good luck!!

Jeremiah Rimpson Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue August 27, 2024 at 1:15 PM EDT

I do not like judging policy debate

I'm not a good flow

Put me on the email chain :) jrimpson123@gmail.com

TLDR:

Judge instruction, above all else, is super important for me – I think this looks differently depending on your style of debate. Generally, I think clear instruction in the rebuttals about where you want me to focus my attention and how you want me to filter offense is a must. For policy teams I think this is more about link and impact framing, and for more critical teams I think this is about considering the judge’s relationships to your theory/performance and being specific about their role in the debate.

For every "flow-check" question, or CX question that starts with a variation of "did you read..." I will doc you .1 speaker points. FLOW DAMNIT.

General:

I am flexible and can judge just about anything. I debated more critically, but read what you're most comfortable with. I will approach every judging opportunity with an open mind and provide feedback that makes sense to you given your strategy.

I care about evidence quality to the extent that I believe in ethically cut evidence, but I think evidence can come in many forms. I won’t read evidence after a debate unless there is an egregious discrepancy over it, or I've been instructed to do so. I think debaters should be able to explain their evidence well enough that I shouldn’t have to read it, so if I'm reading evidence then you haven't done your job to know the literature and will probably receive more judge intervention from me. That being said, I understand that in policy debate reading evidence has become a large part of judging etc, because I'm not ever cutting politics updates be CLEAR and EXPLICIT about why I am reading ev/ what I should be looking for.

Will have a high threshold for voting for out-of-round violences, but if provided with receipts it's not impossible.

Please know I am more than comfortable“clearing”you. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in an automatic loss.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth over Tech -OR- Tech over Truth

For the most part, I am tech over truth, but if both teams are ahead on technical portions of the debate, I will probably use truth to break the tie.

Framework

I think debates about debate are valuable and provide a space for confrontation over a number of debate's disparities/conflicts. A strong defense of your model and a set of specific net-benefits is important. Sure, debate is a game, education is almost always a tiebreaker. Fairness is a fake impact -- go for it I guess but I find it rare nowadays that people actually go for it. I think impact-turning framework is always a viable option. I think both sides should also clearly understand their relationship to the ballot and what the debate is supposed to resolve. At the end of the debate, I should be able to explain the model I voted for and why I thought it was better for debate. Any self-deemed prior questions should be framed as such. All of that is to say there is nothing you can do in this debate that I haven't probably seen so do whatever you think will win you the debate.

Performance + K Affirmatives

Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base.

Kritiks

I filter a lot of what I have read through my own experience both in and out of academia. I think it’s important for debaters to also consider their identity/experience in the context of your/their argument. I would avoid relying too much on jargon because I think it’s important to make the conversations that Kritiks provide accessible. I have read/researched enough to say I can evaluate just about anything, but don't use that as an excuse to be vague or assume that I'll do the work for you. At the end of the debate, there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how your alternative solves the links -- too many people try to kick the alt and I don't get it. Links to the AFF’s performance, subject formation, and scholarship are fair game. I don’t want to say I am 100% opposed to judging kicking alts for people, but I won’t be happy about it and doubt that it will work out for you. If you wanna kick it, then just do it yourself... but again I don't get it.

Any other questions, just ask -- at this point people should know what to expect from me and feel comfortable reaching out.

Goodluck and have fun!

Victor Rivas Umana Alsion Montessori School 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 7:35 AM PDT

Please use this email for speech docs and whatever. vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

OK here's the deal. I did policy debate for 4 years in high school and two semesters in college (once in 2007 and recently in 2016 in Policy Debate). I have coached Public Forum for the last 12 years at various schools and academies including but not limited to: James Logan High School 17-18, Mission San Jose 14-17, Saratoga High School 17-19, Milpitas High School 17-present, Joaquin Miller Middle School 15-present.

Judged Tournaments up until probably 2008 and have not been judging since 2019. I judge primarily public forum rounds but do feel comfortable judging policy debate as it was the event I did in high school (primarily a policy maker debater as opposed to K/Theory) I also judged Lincoln Douglas Debate a few times at some of the national tournaments throughout california but it was not a debate I did in high school. For me my philosophy is simple, just explain what you are talking about clearly. That means if you're going to spread, be clear. If you are going to spread in front of me right now, do not go too fast as I have not judged in awhile so I may have hard time catching certain ideas so please slow down on your tags and cites. Don't think speech docs will fix this issue either. Many of you are too reliant on these docs to compensate for your horrible clarity.

Public Forum: please make sure Summary and final focus are consistent in messaging and voters. dropped voters in summary that are extended in final focus will probably not be evaluated. I can understand a bit of speed since I did policy but given this is public forum, I would rather you not spread. talking a bit fast is fine but not full on spreading.

UPDATE as of 1/5/24: If you plan to run any theory/framework arguments in PF, please refer to my point below for policy when it comes to what I expect. Please for the sake of my sanity and everyone in the round, slow down when reading theory. There is no need to spread it if you feel you are winning the actual argument. Most of you in PF can't spread clearly and would be put to shame by the most unclearest LDer or CX debater.

Policy wise:
I am not fond of the K but I will vote for it if explained properly. If I feel it was not, do not expect me to vote for it I will default to a different voting paradigm, most likely policy maker.
-IF you expect me to vote on Theory or topicality please do a good job of explaining everything clearly and slowly. a lot of times theory and topicality debates get muddled and I just wont look at it in the end. EDIT as of 1/28: I am not too fond of Theory and Topicality debates as they happen now. Many of you go too fast and are unclear which means I don't get your analysis or blippy warrants under standards or voting issues. Please slow the eff down for theory and T if you want me to vote on it.

LD:
I will vote for whatever paradigm you tell me to vote for if you clearly explain the implications, your standards and framework.
-I know you guys spread now like Policy debaters but please slow down as I will have a hard time following everything since its been awhile.

I guess LD has become more like policy and the more like policy it sounds, the easier it is for me to follow. Except for the K and Theory, I am open for all other policy arguments. Theory and K debaters, look above ^^^^

UPDATE FOR LD at Golden Desert and Tournaments moving forward. I don't think many of you really want me as a judge for the current topic or any topic moving forward. My experience in LD as a coach is limited which means my topic knowledge is vague. That means if you are going to pref me as 1 or 2 or 3, I would recommend that you are able to break down your argumentation into the most basic vocabulary or understanding of the topic. If not, you will leave it up to me to interpret the information that you presented as I see fit (if you are warranting and contextualizing your points especially with Ks, we should be fine, if not, I won't call for the cards and I will go with what I understood). I try to go off of what you said and what is on your speech docs but ultimately if something is unclear, I will go with what makes the most sense to me. If you run policy arguments we should be fine (In the order of preference, policy making args including CPs, DAs, case turns and solvency take outs, Ks, Topicality/Theory <--these I don't like in LD or in Policy in general as explained above). Given this information please use this information to pref me. I would say DA/CP debaters should pref me 1 and 2. anyone else should pref me lower unless you have debated in front of me before and you feel I can handle your arguments. Again if its not CP/DA and case take outs you are preffing me higher at your own risk. Given many of you only have three more tournaments to get Bids (if that is your goal for GD, Stanford, Berkeley) then I would recommend you don't have me as your judge as I would not feel as qualified to judge LD as I would judging most policy rounds and Public forum rounds. Is this lame? kinda. But hey I am trying to be honest and not have someone hate me for a decision I made. if you have more questions before GD, please email me at vrivasumana@tgsastaff.com

For all debaters:
clarity: enunciate and make sure you are not going too fast I cannot understand
explain your evidence: I HATE pulling cards at the end of a round. If I have to, do not expect high speaker points. I will go off what was said in the debate so if you do not explain your evidence well, I will not consider it in the debate.

Something I have thought about since it seems that in Public Forum and even in other debates power tagging evidence has become an issue, I am inclined to give lower speaker points for someone who gives me evidence they claimed says one thing and it doesn't. If it is in out rounds, I may be inclined to vote against you as well. This is especially true in PF where the art of power tagging has taken on a life of its own and its pretty bad. I think something needs to get done about this and thus I want to make it very clear if you are in clear violation of this and you present me with evidence that does not say what it does, I am going to sit there and think hard about how I want to evaluate it. I may give you the win but on low points. Or I may drop you if it is in outrounds. I have thought long and hard about this and I am still unsure how I want to approach this but given how bad the situation is beginning to get with students just dumping cards and banking on people not asking questions, I think something needs to be done.

anything else feel free to ask me during the round. thanks.

Daniel Rivero Christopher Columbus High School 4 rounds

Ethan Roytman Germantown Friends School 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 11, 2024 at 5:36 AM EDT

Heritage ‘23 -ethanroytman@gmail.com & germantownfriendsdocs@googlegroups.com & evan.burkeen@yale.edu - add me to the email chain

YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW GOOD SHARVAA SELVAN WAS

Basics

Tech > Truth
Fine w/ speed
Did PF for 4 years
Flay Judge
I agree with Daniel Zhao on TKOs - half the rounds this tournament a team has just not extended an impact - call a TKO if you can TKO speaks only drop the longer the round goes on.

How to win with me/get good Speaks

WEIGH - be comparative, not incoherent. I place a heavier emphasis on weighing than most judges and rlly enjoy if weighing lets me evaluate the round without much thinking.
Send Cards (and rhetoric if you paraphrase) before case and rebuttal in the email chain. There is zero reason not to - you should be disclosing it anyway. Evidence exchanges in PF take way too long and speaks will be capped at 28 if you don't send rebuttal and case docs. Also if one team sends all their ev and the other doesn't I will just err towards that team on evidence questions.
Creative strategies - judging the same round over and over again gets so boring - multiple layers of offense r very fun, rebuttals full of impact turns, squirrely arguments, etc. are all really fun and actually keep me awake during rounds
Keep off-time roadmaps to "neg, aff" or "aff, neg" they shouldn't be 15 words long - literally just signpost in your speech and you will be fine. Speaks are capped at 29 if its longer.
If you are going to be spreading and going hella fast in front half - slow it down in the back half and isolate clear offense that I can vote on.
I'm particularly receptive to disclosure theory (all evidence included) and SPARK.

Prog Run Down

Theory - What I am most confident with and read it a bunch in high school. I'm also fine with friv, I think it makes debate fun every now and then. I haven't heard a team beat para in a while so if you win para good in front of me ill give you a 30.
Kritkis - I am fine with Ks, but understand them less than theory and don't know a lot of big critical lit words. As a whole, I don't enjoy these debates as much; they are usually not read properly and aren't compelling. However, I will not carry that bias in evaluating the K. The only Non-T K that has ever been persuasive to me is WakeWork. Update: I will have a higher threshold for explanations - I am not going to reread ur K link card - if your explanation and implication of your literature isn't sufficient you will not get my ballot.
Trix/Other Random Stuff - Don't know as well, but stuff I have heard/vaguely understand: Skep, Baudrillard (ONLY Charity Cannibalism), and that's basically it. TBH I will vote on something that is well warranted and explained, but if you read something that I haven't mentioned, please explain it 2x more.
TLDR if the argument was at my wiki at some point I understand it (with some exceptions), if not err on the side of caution.

Miscellaneous

If you are looking for a free debate camp - novadebate.org.
If you don't know how to debate theory - https://pfforward.weebly.com/theory.html - pretty good explanation. If you read my paradigm, that means you can't say theory debate is inaccessible, and if you make that argument in the round, you will get a 27. "Varsity level debaters should be able to handle varsity level arguments" -[redacted].
I don't care about formalities - wear whatever makes you comfortable. I prefer Ethan to Judge, but it's really not that deep.
If it is an outround and you disagree with my decision, post round me.
Please DO NOT use blue highlighting lwk hard for me to see and if you are going fast I cant flow off the doc if its blue highlighting.
More efficient the round the better the speaks for both teams (GCX is skippable).
If you have any other questions, ask before the round or on messenger.
30 Speaks Theory = 27

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCe5M3dWx30

Gabe Rusk Fairmont Prep 7 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 21, 2024 at 12:32 AM PDT

Gabe Rusk ☮️&♡

Email: Please cc

gabriel.rusk@gmail.com

fairmontdebateteam@gmail.com

If you have any questions about NSD this summer come chat with me! I will be assisting as PF Curriculum Director at Philly I and II. Come join us.

King/NDCA/TOC

I have judged a lot of rounds folks. The most joy I have in rounds these days is when we are closest to the orbit of the topic literature and doing comparative analysis/weighing/evidence comparison. This is basking in the warm topic sun. This piques my curiosity more at the moment and the farther from the center we go the colder I get. We have come a long way at a lot of these tournaments and I would prefer more topical oriented rounds where possible.

It is with awe
that I beheld
fresh leaves, green leaves,
bright in the sun.

- Basho

Background

My research interests for the last 10 years and in grad school have been legal history, press freedom, and the First Amendment. Check out more recommendations for long-form journalism and press freedom here at www.FreePressForAll.org

Debate Experience: TOC Champion PF 2010, 4th at British Parli University National Championships 2014, Oxford Debate Union competitive debater 2015-2016 (won best floor speech), LGBTQIA+ Officer at the Oxford Debate Union.

NSDA PF Topic Committee Member: If you have any ideas, topic areas, or resolutions in mind for next season please send them to my email below.

Coaching Experience: Director of Debate at Fairmont Prep 2018-Current, Senior Instructor and PF Curriculum Director at ISD, La Altamont Lane 2018 TOC, GW 2010-2015. British Parli coach and lecturer for universities including DU, Oxford, and others.

Education: Masters from Oxford University '16 - Dissertation on the history of the First Amendment. Religion and Philosophy BA at DU '14. Other research areas include Buddhism, comparative religion, conlaw, First Amendment law, free speech, freedom of expression, art law, media law, & legal history.

2023 Winter Data Update: Importing my Tabroom data I've judged 651 rounds since 2014 with a 53% Pro and 47% Con vote balance. There may be a slight subconscious Aff bias it seems. My guess is that I may subconsciously give more weight to changing the status quo as that's the core motivator of debate but no statistically meaningful issues are present.

PF Paradigm

Judge Philosophy

I consider myself tech>truth but constantly lament the poor state of evidence ethics, power tagging, clipping, and more. Further, I know stakes can be high in a bubble, bid, or important round but let's still come out of the debate feeling as if it was a positive experience. Life is too short for needless suffering. Please be kind, compassionate, and cordial.

1 (Thriving) - 5 (Vibes Are Dwindling) - 10 (Death of the Soul)

LARP -1

Topical Kritiks - 3

Non-Topical Kritiks - 4

Theory - 5

"Friv" Theory/Trix - 8

Big Things

What I want to see: I'm empathetic to major technical errors in my ballots. In a perfect world I vote for the team who does best on tech and secondarily on truth. I tend to resolve clash most easily when you give explicit reasons why either a) your evidence is comparatively better but also when you tell me why b) your warranting is comparatively better. Obviously doing both compounds your chances at winning my ballot. I have recently become more sensitive to poor extensions in the back half. Please have UQ where necessary, links, internal links, and impacts. Weighing introduced earlier the better. Weighing is your means to minimize intervention.
Weighing Unlike Things: I need to know how to weigh two comparatively unlike things. This is why metaweighing is so important. If you are weighing some economic impact against a non-economic impact like democracy how do I defer to one over the other? Scope, magnitude, probability etc is a means to differentiate but you need to give me warrants, evidence, reasons why prob > mag for example. I am very amicable to non-trad framing of impacts but you need to extend the warrants and evidence.
Weighing Like Things: Please have warrants and engage comparatively between yourself and your opponent. Obviously methodological and evidentiary comparison is nice too as I mentioned earlier. I love crossfires or speech time where we discuss the warrants behind our cards and why that's another reason to prefer your arg over your opponent.
Don't be a DocBot: I love that you're prepared and have enumerated overviews, blocks, and frontlines. I love heavy evidence and dense debates with a lot of moving parts. But if it sounds like you're just reading a doc without specific or explicit implications to your opponent's contentions you are not contributing anything meaningful to the round. Tell me why your responses interact. If they are reading an arg about the environment and just read an A2 Environment Non-Unique without explaining why your evidence or warranting is better then this debate will suffer.
I'm comfortable if you want to take the debate down kritical, theoretical, and/or pre-fiat based roads. I think framework debates be them pre or post fiat are awesome. Voted on many K's before too. Here be dragons. I will say though, over time I've become increasingly tired of opportunistic, poor quality, and unfleshed out theory in PF. But in the coup of the century, I have been converted to the position that disclosure theory and para theory is a viable path to the ballot if you win your interp. I do have questions I am ruminating on after the summer doxxing of judges and debaters whether certain interps of disc are viable and am interested to see how that can be explored in a theory round. I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. See thoughts below on that. All variables being equal I would prefer post-fiat stock topic-specific rounds but in principle remain as tabula rasa as I can on disc and paraphrasing theory.

Little Things

I would prefer if case docs were sent prior to the constructives to minimize evidence exchange time but not required of course.
Calling for your opponent's cards. It should not take more than 1 minute to find case cards. Do preflows before the round. Smh y'all.
(New Note for 2024: Speech docs have never intended to serve as an alternative to flowing a speech. They are for exchanging evidence faster and to better scrutinize evidence.Otherwise, you could send a 3000 word case and the speech itself could be as unintelligible as you would like without a harm. As a result there is an infinite regress of words you could send. Thus I will not look at a speech doc during your speech to aid with flowing and will clear you if needed. I will look at docs only when there is evidence comparison, flags, indicts etc but prefer to have it on hand. My speed threshold is very high but please be a bit louder than usual the faster you go. I know there is a trade off with loudness and speed but what can we do.
Second rebuttal must at least respond to turns/terminal defense against their own case.
Defense is not sticky between rebuttal and final focus. Aka if defense is not in summary you can't extend it in final focus. I've flipped on this recently. I've found the debate is hurt by the removal of the defense debate in summary and second final focus can extend whatever random defense it wants or whatever random frontlines to defense. This gives the second speaking teams a disproportionate advantage and makes the debate needlessly more messy.
I will pull cards on two conditions. First, if it becomes a key card in the round and the other team questions the validity of the cut, paraphrasing, or explanation of the card in the round. Second, if the other team never discusses the merits of their opponents card the only time I will ever intervene and call for that evidence is if a reasonable person would know it's facially a lie.
Maybe I am getting old but try to be on time, especially flight 2, like arrive early.
If you spread that's fine. Just be prepared to adjust if I need to clear or provide speech docs to your opponents to allow for accessibility and accommodation.
My favorite question in cx is: Why? For example, "No I get that's what your evidence says but why?"
Germs are scary. I don't like to shake hands. It's not you! It's me! [Before covid times this was prophetic].
I don't like to time because it slows my flow in fast rounds but please flag overtime responses in speechs and raise your phone. Don't interrupt or use loud timers.

Ramblings on Trigger Warning Theory

Let me explain why I am writing this. This isn't because I'm right and you're wrong. I'm not trying to convince you. Nor should you cite this formally in round to win said round. Rather, a lot of you care so much about debate and theory in particular gets pretty personal fairly quickly that I want to explain why my hesitancy isn't personal to you either. I am not opposing theory as someone who is opposed to change in Public Forum.

- First, I would highly discourage running trigger warning theory in front of me. My grad school research and longstanding work outside of debate has tracked how queer, civil rights advocates, religious minorities, and political dissidents have been extensively censored over time through structural means. The suppression and elimination of critical race theory and BLM from schools and universities is an extension of this. I have found it very difficult to be tabula rasa on this issue. TW/anonymous opt outs are welcome if you so wish to include them, that is your prerogative, but like I said the lack of one is not a debate I can be fair on. Let me be clear. I do not dismiss that "triggers" are real. I do not deny your lived experience on face nor claim all of you are, or even a a significant number of you, are acting in bad faith. This is always about balancing tests. My entire academic research for over 8 years was about how structural oppressors abuse these frameworks of "sin," "harm," "other," to squash dissidents, silence suffragettes, hose civil rights marchers, and imprison queer people because of the "present danger they presented in their conduct or speech." I also understand that some folks in the literature circles claim there is a double bind. You are opting out of trigger warning debates but you aren't letting me opt out of debates I don't want to have either. First, I will never not listen to or engage in this debate. My discouragement above is rooted in my deep fear that I will let you down because I can't be as fair as I would be on another issue. I tell students all the time tabula rasa is a myth. I still think that. It's a goal we strive for to minimize intervention because we will never eliminate it. Second, I welcome teams to still offer tw and will not penalize you for doing so. Third, discussions on SV, intersectionality, and civil rights are always about trade offs. Maybe times will change but historically more oppression, suppression, and suffering has come from the abuse of the your "speech does me harm" principle than it benefits good faith social justice champions who want to create a safe space and a better place. If you want to discuss this empirical question (because dang there are so many sources and this is an appeal to my authority) I would love to chat about it.

Next, let me explain some specific reasons why I am resistant to TW theory in debate using terms we use in the literature. There is a longstanding historical, philosophical, and queer/critical theory concern on gatekeeper shift. If we begin drawing more and more abstract lines in terms of what content causes enough or certain "harm" that power can and will be co-opted and abused by the equally more powerful. Imagine if you had control over what speech was permitted versus your polar opposite actor in values. Now imagine they, via structural means, could begin to control that power for themselves only. In the last 250 years of the US alone I can prove more instances than not where this gatekeeping power was abused by government and powerful actors alike. I am told since this has changed in the last twenty years with societal movements so should we. I don't think we have changed that significantly. Just this year MAUS, a comic about the Holocaust, was banned in a municipality in Jan 22. Toni Morrison was banned from more than a dozen school districts in 2021 alone. PEN, which is a free press and speech org, tracked more than 125 bills, policies, or resolutions alone this year that banned queer, black, feminist, material be them books, films, or even topics in classrooms, libraries, and universities. Even in some of the bills passed and proposed the language being used is under the guise of causing "discomfort." "Sexuality" and discussions of certain civil rights topics is stricken from lesson plans all together under these frameworks. These trends now and then are alarming.

I also understand this could be minimizing the trauma you relive when a specific topic or graphic description is read in round. I again do not deny your experience on face ever. I just cannot comfortably see that framework co-opted and abused to suppress the mechanisms or values of equality and equity. So are you, Gabe, saying because the other actors steal a tool and abuse that tool it shouldn't be used for our shared common goals? Yes, if the powerful abuse that tool and it does more harm to the arc of history as it bends towards justice than I am going to oppose it. This can be a Heckler's Veto, Assassin's Veto, Poisoning The Well, whatever you want to call it. Even in debate I have seen screenshots of actual men discussing how they would always pick the opt out because they don't want to "debate girls on women issues in front of a girl judge." This is of course likely an incredibly small group but I am tired of seeing queer, feminist, or critical race theory based arguments being punted because of common terms or non-graphic descriptions. Those debates can be so enriching to the community and their absence means we are structurally disadvantaged with real world consequences that I think outweigh the impacts usually levied against this arg. I will defend this line for the powerless and will do so until I die.

All of these above claims are neither syllogisms or encyclopedias of events. I am fallible and so are those arguments. Hence let us debate this but just know my thoughts.

Like in my disclaimer on the other theory shell none of these arguments are truisms just my inner and honest thoughts to help you make strategic decisions in the round.

Website: I love reading non-fiction, especially features. Check out my free website Rusk Reads for good article recs.

Prajwal Saokar Millburn High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 3:46 PM EDT

Prajwal

I competed on the national circuit for Lambert Debate and coached several TOC-qualifying teams over the past 2 years.

Email: prajwalsaokar@gmail.com

Big Picture stuff

TLDR: tech>truth, if you can give warrants ill vote on anything, please weigh comparatively, and run some entertaining stuff if you know how

- Go as fast as you want, but if you're reading at 280+ wpm please send a doc and please be clear no matter what

- Some people I think are good judges are John Nahas, Max Hardt, Siva Sambasivam, and Nathaniel Yoon

- No matter what offense you go for, I need an EXPLICIT extension of the link, internal link and impact in BOTH Summary and Final Focus otherwise I probably just won't vote on the argument

- If you want me to vote on a turn, make sure to impact it and weigh it like any other piece of offense

- weigh comparatively, don't just tell me why you're impact is good, I need to know why its better than ur opponents. if both sides are going for different mechanisms (ie: magnitude vs probability) I need metaweighing as to which mechanism is better. If you are going for a prereq or link-in, do some link weighing as to why you link into their impact better than them

- frontline all responses against arguments that you want to go for in the second rebuttal, if you don't frontline defense against an argument that you go for, and your opponents extend it, I'll evaluate it as conceded

- If you think that your opponent has NO path to the ballot, you can call a TKO, if I think you are right you get a W30, if not you get an L25

- I don't pay attention to CX but be nice

Progressive Stuff

- On theory I default to RVIs and Competing Interps, but I'll evaluate it under whatever paradigm issues you read

-don't read theory on novices, if its anyone else go for it

- weigh your shell vs your opponents shell, the interp vs the counterinterp, etc to help make my decision easier

- I'm stealing this next bit from Siva: I believe that if someone is winning a link turn on your shell (not reasons to prefer a competing interp) but a link turn - i.e. you read time skew bad and they say time skew good because it fosters critical thinking, an RVI does not get you out of that unless you explicitly explain why your RVI should preclude link turns. Like if your warrant for no RVI's is that it is illogical because you shouldn't win for proving that you are fair/educational - that isn't responsive to time-skew good, right, because their argument is that they are being comparatively more fair/educational than you.

- I'm not familiar with a lot of more complex K lit (Baudrillard) but I understand the stock stuff like Cap K , Securitization, Threat Construction, etc. That being said, I'm willing to evaluate anything as long as you can warrant and explain it

- Tricks: these make for highly entertaining rounds so feel free to read them in front of me, but don't hide them in tags/random places in your speech otherwise I won't flow or evaluate them. If its anything outside the Empiricus/basic skep arguments you might want to slow down and do more explanation in the back half. MAKE SURE TO IMPLICATE THE ARGUMENTS YOU READ otherwise the flow gets very messy very fast

Ev (stole this from my partner)

There is no such thing as bad evidence- only unstrategic evidence. If you "have a card" that says bitcoin saves 3 billion lives then it's on your opponents for not calling you out if that's what you go for. Then again if they call you out now you don't have an impact so sucks to suck. Make it easy on yourself and do the ev comparison in speech to avoid possible intervention. I'm probably not going to read evidence in a round, i think its interventionist in many cases to do so, but if its a major point of contention and both teams say I should I probably will.

Liz Scott JR Masterman 7 rounds

Matthew Sebastian Delbarton School 7 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 12:50 PM EDT

Background

I debated for Delbarton for four years so consider me more of a flow judge.

Email Chains (For Varsity Only): Teams should start an email chain as soon as they get into the round (virtual and in-person) and send full case cards by end of constructive. If case is paraphrased, also send case rhetoric. I will not accept locked google docs. Additionally, teams should send all new evidence read in rebuttal, but up to debaters.

The subject of the email should have the following: Tournament Name - Rd # - Team Code (side/order) v Team Code (side/order) .

Please add matthew.seb15@gmail.com and greenwavedebate@delbarton.org to the email chain.

Evidence

Have cut cards. Don't send me a link and tell me to find the part you're talking about

Evidence ethics matter, make sure your evidence says what you claim it does. I won't vote for anything with fabricated or grossly misrepresented evidence.

I might call for evidence after the round if needed.

General

Generally tech>truth. But I won't vote for anything racist, sexist, etc.

I can handle speed, but don'tsacrifice clarity for speed. If you're going to be speaking fast send a speech doc

I will not flow cross so anything important said in cross should be brought up in the subsequent speech.

2nd rebuttal needs to frontline all defense and turns.

Extend offense and defense in summary (this means case, turns, responses, etc) nothing is sticky. Evidence extensions should extend both the card tag and the warrant (eg. simply saying "extend Jones 20" is not a sufficient evidence extension). I don't usually flow author names anyways.

Signpost (tell me where you are on the flow). Off time roadmaps are encouraged.

Proper extensions for offense are important, I will not vote for an argument that is not properly extended even if your opponents drop it. In order for me to vote for an argument (including a turn) you must extend both the link and impact (hopefully with lots of warrants).

Please do comparative weighing,ideally start in summary but new weighing in 1st final is fine.

If I don't understand your argument I will not vote for it

Theory

I have some experience with theory and have voted for it before, but I'm not a theory expert by any means so make sure you properly explain and implicate your shell as with any other arg.

In general I think disclosure is good and paraphrasing is bad but I will not hack for those args you must win the shell for me to vote for it.

I usually default to reasonability and have a very low threshold for responses on frivolous theory, i.e. (don't say good luck) and will drop it if your opponents tell me it's dumb. If you have questions about whether your shell counts as frivolous probably don't read it in front of me.

Do not read theory in novice, I won't evaluate it.

I have judged common Ks (i.e. Feminism, Capitalism, Securitization) before but in general am not super familiar with K lit so run them at your own risk. I will evaluate any arg you want to run but make sure you explain and warrant your K really well in the back half because if I don't understand it I'm not voting off it.

Do not read a K in novice, I won't evaluate it.

If you have any questions before round feel free to ask

Gavin Serr The Nueva School 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 22, 2024 at 3:09 PM MDT

Bio:

I am an assistant PF coach at Nueva and Park City.

I am a former director of speech and debate at Park City.

I have been a PF lab leader at NDF, CNDI, and PFBC.

I mostly competed in PF in high school, but also dabbled in LD and speech.

I judge about 100 rounds per year. Most of these rounds are national circuit PF, though I sparingly -- and generally begrudgingly -- judge local Policy, Parli, and traditional LD.

I study economics at the University of Utah.

Broadly Applicable Tea:

-- While I've included some thoughts on different types of arguments below, my foremost preference is that you make your favorite argument in front of me.

-- I have not yet found The Truth in my life, so I will evaluate the round as it is debated.

-- Debate is a communicative activity. I will never flow off a speech doc.

-- I believe PF, LD, and Policy are all evidence-based formats, so quality evidence -- and quality spin on evidence -- is very impressive and persuasive. I flow author names and prefer that extensions include those.

-- Be silly and down to earth and not dominant or aggressive. A sense of humor is greatly appreciated.

-- I have no qualms with speed in any format, but if you speak at Mach-10, consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears. Clarity, explanation, organization, and the use of full sentences dramatically increase my speed threshold. I will 'clear' you twice before I stop flowing.

-- Impact comparison is very important to me. It is likely that both teams will prove some harm/benefit of the AFF. Whether that becomes a net harm/benefit of the AFF often hinges on weighing. Tell me why I should vote for you even if I buy your opponents' argument.

-- Tell me how to decide what's true and resolve competing claims. The team that makes the most "prefer our evidence/empirics/claims because" statements tends to win my ballot.

-- I do not time speeches or track prep. Please hold one another accountable so I don't have to. If I have begun doing so, you should all feel called out.

-- I'm a stickler about extensions. In my RFDs, I sometimes find myself saying things like: "the Neg wins that the Aff causes a recession, but I'm not sure why a recession is bad, so I ignore it." You should be making complete arguments in your final speeches. This also illustrates the importance of terminalizing impacts early -- such statements are most likely when there was not an impact to begin with.

-- I don't think it is good to advocate for death or self harm, and I do not think that is a bias I will be persuaded to overcome.

-- I have never voted on presumption and I doubt you'll be the first to change that.

— It’s rare I agree that there is zero risk of a claim at the end of the debate.

Evidence and Email Chains:

-- Anyone who does not meet NSDA evidence standards should politely strike me.

-- Please utilize an email chain to share speech docs. Title it something logical and addgavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com. Please also add nuevadocs@gmail.com.

-- I tend not to open the email chain. If I'm instructed to read a specific card, I will.

-- You should not need a marked doc. An inability to flow is a skill issue that should not delay the round. I can be petty with speaks in these situations.

-- I will only vote on arguments that are in both summary and final focus.

-- Defense is never sticky. If you give me a reason to disbelieve your opponents' claims, that same reason must be present in each subsequent speech for me to agree with it at the end of the debate.

-- I like to see weighing done as soon as possible. If weighing is introduced in the second summary, I'll be much more sympathetic to quick answers to it in the first final focus. No new weighing in final focus.

-- Warrants for your weighing will be most persuasive when predicated on claims from your evidence. It’s a lot more challenging to avoid intervention when weighing is one or two unwarranted or analytical sentences in each team’s summary.

-- Crossfire and flex prep exist so that we do not need a 'flow clarification' timeout during the debate.

— I like specificity within the confines of NSDA rules, which forbid plans but suggest debaters may have a generalized advocacy. I certainly don’t think Affirmative teams need to defend every possible interpretation of the resolution, and I’m open to believing they don’t even have to defend the most probable one. I am especially impressed by Negative teams prepared to address specific advocacies with specific answers. I also feel comfortable offering the Negative more leeway to illustrate opportunity cost of the resolution in ways that more traditional judges may perceive as “too policy.” PF resolutions are specific enough that I think competitive counter-advocacies are completely kosher.

— Consistent with the above view, I think many teams would be well-served by reading topicality in front of me. In contrast to other events - where this would make no sense — I absolutely believe the Aff can read topicality too. Explicitly implicate T as offense and defense to avoid intervention. I’m similarly willing to consider a won perm as terminal defense in debates with specific advocacies

— “This isn’t policy” will never be a persuasive answer to well-explained or well-researched arguments in front of me. I would softly suggest doing more research and making valid arguments instead of whining.

Kritiks:

-- I have coached a couple K teams and tend to find critical arguments very interesting. That said, it has not been my focus as a debater or as a coach.

-- Assume I know nothing about your literature.

-- Please keep in mind that I am of incredibly average intelligence.

-- I will not vote on arguments premised on another debater's identity. An argument premised on your own identity is certainly permissible.

-- Aim to engage. I am most interested in criticisms that directly indict the Aff or otherwise have a link to the topic. I'm less interested in criticisms that rely on a ROTB or framework argument to exclude other offense in the round. Conversely, I am most impressed by Aff teams willing to contest the thesis of the critique -- even if the response is merely analytical.

-- Consider me a lay judge in this realm, but feel free to read one if you would find it strategic or fulfilling.

Theory:

-- I will vote on disclosure theory if a team does not disclose at all. I’m slightly less willing to evaluate paraphrase theory.

— Aside than the above exceptions, I would strongly prefer not to judge a theory debate. I will evaluate the round as debated, but I will use speaker points punitively if you ignore this preference.

-- Unless I feel compelled to contact DCFS, I will be skeptical of accusations of "abuse."

IVIs:

-- I’ve yet to be impressed by one. If you can’t write a relevant theory interp, I’m not sure how these could produce positive norms. Ad hominems don’t persuade me.

Tricks:

-- This is where I will be most likely to intervene in my decision. I would rather watch paint dry.

LD/Policy

-- I am a flay judge here.

-- (Almost certainly correctly) assume I know nothing about the topic. You will have to explain your acronyms to me.

-- Top speed may challenge me, but you do you. I'll 'clear' twice.

-- I'm willing to evaluate nearly any argument, but I will be most comfortable hearing the kinds you would expect in a Public Forum round. Clarity and explanation will otherwise be most useful to you.

Zhaoxing Shi Hamilton High School 7 rounds

Bob Shurtz Hawken 7 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 11:12 AM EDT

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I am a flow judge. I find real-world impacts to be the most persuasive. Of course, it isn't the magnitude of your impact alone that matters. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but I would strongly prefer no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

Regan E Slish Hire 1 rounds

Anna Stockstill Hire 1 rounds

Andy Stubbs The Kinkaid School 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:25 PM EDT

Email chain: andrew.ryan.stubbs@gmail.com

Policy:

I did policy debate in high school and coach policy debate in the Houston Urban Debate League.

Debate how and what you want to debate. With that being said, you have to defend your type of debate if it ends up competing with a different model of debate. It's easier for me to resolve those types of debate if there's nuance or deeper warranting than just "policy debate is entirely bad and turns us into elitist bots" or "K debate is useless... just go to the library and read the philosophy section".

Explicit judge direction is very helpful. I do my best to use what's told to me in the round as the lens to resolve the end of the round.

The better the evidence, the better for everyone. Good evidence comparison will help me resolve disputes easier. Extensions, comparisons, and evidence interaction are only as good as what they're drawing from-- what is highlighted and read. Good cards for counterplans, specific links on disads, solvency advocates... love them.

I like K debates, but my lit base for them is probably not nearly as wide as y'all. Reading great evidence that's explanatory helps and also a deeper overview or more time explaining while extending are good bets.

For theory debates and the standards on topicality, really anything that's heavy on analytics, slow down a bit, warrant out the arguments, and flag what's interacting with what. For theory, I'll default to competing interps, but reasonability with a clear brightline/threshold is something I'm willing to vote on.

The less fully realized an argument hits the flow originally, the more leeway I'm willing to give the later speeches.

PF:

I'm going to vote for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

Progressive arguments and speed are fine (differentiate tags and author). I need to know which offense is prioritized and that's not work I can do; it needs to be done by the debaters. I'm receptive to arguments about debate norms and how the way we debate shapes the activity in a positive or negative way.

My three major things are: 1. Warranting is very important. I'm not going to give much weight to an unwarranted claim, especially if there's defense on it. That goes for arguments, frameworks, etc. 2. If it's not on the flow, it can't go on the ballot. I won't do the work extending or impacting your arguments for you. 3. It's not enough to win your argument. I need to know why you winning that argument matters in the bigger context of the round.

Worlds:

Worlds rounds are clash-centered debates on the most reasonable interpretation of the motion.

Style: Clearly present your arguments in an easily understandable way; try not to read cases or arguments word for word from your paper

Content: The more fully realized the argument, the better. Things like giving analysis/incentives for why the actors in your argument behave like you say they do, providing lots of warranting explaining the "why" behind your claims, and providing a diverse, global set of examples will make it much easier for me to vote on your argument.

Strategy: Things that I look for in the strategy part of the round are: is the team consistent down the bench in terms of their path to winning the round, did the team put forward a reasonable interpretation of the motion, did the team correctly identify where the most clash was happening in the round.

Remember to do the comparative. It's not enough that your world is good; it needs to be better than the other team's world.

Anbu Subramanian Delbarton School 2 rounds

Alexander Sun Charlotte Latin School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu May 16, 2024 at 1:11 PM EDT

I debated PF for four years at Delbarton. I currently coach for Charlotte Latin.

my emails for the chain are alexsun6804@gmail.com

charlottelatindebate@gmail.com

General Notes:

-Tech over truth

-Go as fast as you want, but if there isn't clarity then none of the content within the speech will matter. If you're spreading, send a doc in the chain if you feel like half of the speech isn't going to be super coherent.

-You should weigh and collapse on whatever arguments you think are the most important within the round.

-Tell me where you are on the flow (signpost) for speeches after constructive, otherwise I'm going to be really confused.

For Rebuttal:

-Provide warrants (reasoning and explanation) and implications to your responses
-First rebuttal should address your opponent's case and you can do weighing if you want

-Second rebuttal should respond to your opponent's case and you should frontline your own case.

For Summary:

-Collapse on the most important arguments in the round

-This is the latest you can start weighing, if you start weighing for the first time in final focus I'm not going to evaluate that.

-Rebuttal responses are not sticky so extend them if they are conceded

-General structure for summary can be your case, weighing, their case, but you can do whatever you want in terms of the structure as long as it makes sense

-Always extend or explain your case in summary

For Final Focus:

-Should be very similar to summary with the exception to front lining and comparative weighing

Other Stuff:

-Have cut cards ready if something is called

-Extend offense in the back half, otherwise, I'll be forced to intervene or presume

-I've done some stuff with theory and Ks, but don't be really trigger-happy with either. In general, disclosure and paraphrasing theory are examples of shells that I will be happy to evaluate. No frivolous theory, there needs to be quality warranting for drop the debater or drop the argument that could potentially make the interpretation a norm after the round. For Ks, I'm familiar with identity K's, securitization, set col, but feel free to run other Ks if you think it's important. I've judged rounds that involve tricks, and usually, it gets crazy, so go for them only if you feel like it's necessary to win the round. I'll do my best to evaluate progressive arguments if it goes down in the round.

-Don't be rude or say something problematic. It could cost you the round.

Good luck.

Stella Sung Canyon Crest Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 3:12 AM PDT

JANUARY, 2025 UPDATE:I prefer to judge lay rounds as indicated in my paradigm below. However, in the last few months, I have judged K rounds, theory rounds, and elim rounds where one or both teams have spread. Please note that I have so far never squirreled in an elim round where teams have run either Ks, theory or have spread (though I ask for the docs)...and often I am the lay/flay on a panel with 2 tech judges. Coincidence? Who knows? But I feel like I should provide this information so that teams can decide what arguments they want to read. Good luck, all! :)

MY PARADIGM, IT DOES RHYME

A reluctant judge who’s a parent,

Better make your speeches coherent!

Don’t run theory or a clever K,

Risky strategies because I’m lay.

Surely, you don’t dare to spread.

Rely on good warranting instead!

Fake a conflict, and I’ll hold a grudge--

Use a proper strike to remove me as your judge.

I’ll do my best to keep a good flow,

Of all the arguments apropos.

Don’t falsely say an argument was dropped,

Or your score will unceremoniously be chopped.

Near impossible to earn 30 speaks--

Lay appeal combined with incredible techniques.

My ballot is truth over tech,

Especially when probability is but a speck.

Terminal impact of nuclear war,

When farfetched, is a claim I abhor.

I end this with typical lay dross—

Have fun and be respectful in cross!

--Parent Paradigm Poet

PS. Add me to the email chain (smsung@post.harvard.edu). I do actually read the cards and cases, if needed for my RFDs

********************************************************************************************************************************

April 2024 update...I feel I must step it up for TOC, so I'm adding another version:

PARADIGM TO THE TUNE OF “ANTI-HERO” BY TAYLOR SWIFT

PERFORMED BY THE TALENTED FIONA LI, THE OVERLAKE SCHOOL '24

I try to flow where I get speeches but just never crossfire
Debates become my sacred job
When my confusion shows with nonsense claims
All of the students I've downed will stand there and just sob

I should not be left to my own devices
They come with prices and vices
I end up in crisis (tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

Sometimes I feel like disclo-theory is a sexy case read
And I'm a substance judge for real
Too lay to judge tech, always leaning toward the actual factoids
Truth through and through, to me appeals

Did you read my covert activism--I drop speaks for chauvinism
And same goes for racism? (Tale as old as time)
I write my ballot from habit
Extend contentions for retention
Left on my flow sheet with intention
(For the last time)

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis-close, everybody will see
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

I have this dream the teams that I judge signpost and speak clearly
Collapsed and covered, showing skill
The impacts weighed well with data and then someone screams out
"She's writing up her RFD!"

It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, I'm the lay judge, it's me
It's me, hi, everybody will see, everybody will see

It's me, hi (hi), I'm the lay judge, it's me (I'm the lay judge, it's me)
I dis (dis) close (close), everybody will see (everybody will see)
I'll vote directly if you weigh but never with no cards cut
I find it annoying always spreading for the useless word glut.

**PLEASE ADD ME TO THE EMAIL CHAIN: SMSUNG@POST.HARVARD.EDU

Hui Tang Thomas S. Wootton HS 4 rounds

Jeff Thormodsgard SF Roosevelt 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 20, 2024 at 1:48 PM CDT

Jeffrey Thormodsgard

Assistant Coach of Debate at Roosevelt High School, Sioux Falls, SD

pronouns: he/him

Please add my email to the email chain: jeffrey.thormodsgard@k12.sd.us

I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence post the debate that was not done by the students. Speech > Speech Doc

I prefer providing oral RFDs unless rounds are extremely complicated or messy —those RFDs take more time. I understand the commitment you put into the activity so I try my best to put the same amount of effort into judging and making a decision. Nothing is worse than when a judge does not care about what they do and does not give you real feedback because the whole point of the activity is education and to learn. Post round oral disclosure is good. I subscribe to (most of) Lawrence Zhou's thoughts on the matter here. If you're from South Dakota, bonus points if you read that one. ;)

My only real pet peeve is wasting time during or before a debate. Please be ready to start the debate on time and don't cause unnecessary delays during it. Preflowing should be done before the debate start time. When prep time ends, you should be ready to start your speech right away. "Pulling up a doc" or something like that for 30 seconds is stealing prep and should be done before you end your prep time. Assume I'm running the clock.

Public Forum

This event should be accessible to all--meaning please keep your rate of delivery in check. I can keep up with speed, but please make sure to articulate yourself. If I can't understand the words you are saying at the pace you're saying them, then I can't flow. In addition, the speed at which you're talking shouldn't interfere with your presentation. If I don’t flow it, it doesn’t exist. If you're going too fast, I'll communicate that in round. Debate should be for everyone and not just those who can afford debate camp and those who speak English as their first language... If both teams love fast debate, and everyone agrees to it, then let's go all out speed because I enjoy fast debate too (just give me a heads up). I'd like a speech doc if you're going to go over 275+ words per minute. If I miss something in summary or final focus because you're going too fast and I drop it, it's your fault; slow down, don't go for everything, and be efficient.

Rebuttals:

If you are speaking first, I'm fine with you spending all 4 minutes on the opp case. If you are second speaker, you should defend your case in some capacity and briefly respond to args made on your case. At minimum, you must answer turns. If you speak second and don’t answer turns in rebuttal, you will almost certainly lose the round if your opponents go for those turns. This is not to say I think you need to go for everything in second rebuttal. I’m fine with you kicking arguments and thinking strategically during the round.

Summary/FF:

I like clear voting issues. Summary and final focus should crystallize the round. Don't just do line-by-line. Also, if an argument isn't extended in both summary and FF, I won't vote on it.

Crossfire:

Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

Prep time/calling for cards:

If it looks like you are prepping, I will start the clock. I'm fine if you time your own prep, but know that I am also keeping time and my time is the official time.

I believe the activity is approaching the point where it should be the norm to send all the evidence you read over to your opponent rather than doing this inefficient one (1) card at a time nonsense. Whatever you do though, please be efficient. I blame inefficient evidence exchange on the team fetching the evidence, not on the team requesting it.

Debate is an activity about high quality research not writing a persuasive English paper. If you paraphrase (1) you shouldn't be, and (2)then you really need to have the cut cards ready at a minimum. A card is not cut if it does not have a complete and correct citation as well as the important/cited parts of the card being emphasized. Evidence should be able to be sent when asked for in a timely manner. If it is not sent quickly it may be dropped from the debate. If you're using an email chain, I don't care how many tech. issues you have, I'm keeping a running clock. Have your evidence sent over at the start to your opp, or hand over your device when evidence is called for.

Theory/Kritiks/Counterplans/Plans

Run whatever you think will win.

Public Forum time structures are not suitable for debating Kritiks with alternatives. However, debating ethics directly related to the topic and arguing it outweighs/should come first is good with me. No plan texts or counterplan texts please (note: a counterplan text is not saying 'another solution is better than the solution being presented by the resolution' -- that's just an argument, just answer it...).

If you're running K arguments, I'm expecting strong blocks -your case relies on it. If you're using a K to avoid clash, don't. If you're spreading on a K, don't make the round harder than it has to be. K's should be about education. If no one in the round understands you b/c your argument is using complicated jargon and you're spreading, you aren't achieving your goal. Make it accessible. Non-topical Ks need to have justification and should be engaged with - don't be abusive and avoid vague alts.

Very high threshold on theory. Despite being tech over truth 95% of the time, I have limited tech expectations on theory since I don't want to punish students who couldn't afford debate camp to learn the technical aspects of theory. If something truly unfair happened in the debate, then go for it by arguing 1) we should have this norm and 2) you violated that norm. To beat theory argue it 1) shouldn't be a norm or 2) you didn't violate the rule or 3) we should have a different norm instead of the one you provided. Theory should be a check on unfair debate practices, not a strategy to catch your opponent off guard.

Disclosure is good (on balance)

I feel that debaters/teams should disclose. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate.

ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

Framework

TLDR: If your version of debate doesn't promote clash, you're going to have a tough time winning my ballot. Beyond that, it's about the learning.

Postrounding

Postround as hard as you want. I won't change my decision, but I believe it helps education for the activity for both judge and debaters.

Other stuff:

Anything excessively past time (5+ seconds) on your speech can be dropped from the round. I won't flow it, and I won't expect your opponent to respond to it.
I don't care how you dress, if you sit, stand, etc. Debate should be comfortable and accessible for you. Know that the tournament has an equity officer for a reason.
Collapsing and making strategic decisions in 2nd rebuttal and 1st summary is an expectation of PF. Try to go for everything, and you will fail. There's a reason speech times decrease.
Rudeness in cross will lose you speaker points. You can make strategic offensive rhetorical decisions to put your opponent on the defensive, but there is a difference. I try to be as wary as possible of my own implicit biases in giving low speaks for this. I've had too many of my students (especially women and POC) docked speaker points for being "too aggressive" towards or for "interrupting" their male opponents. If you feel I am unfair on this, postround me, and we can discuss.
I will negate speaks for pretending something was in summ when it wasn't; pretending your opponents didn't respond when they did; etc. You need to meet your opponent at their best, as they should do to you.
Speaks from me should be seen as percentages sans the first number i.e. 30.0 = 100%, 29.9 = 99%, 29.8= 98%

I occasionally judge LD. My stances on all of the above carry over. You need to weigh the competing value/criterions and what should take precedent within a particular resolution. Connect your V/C to your contentions - and tell me why we should frame the resolution through your V/C instead of your opponents. You should clearly communicate the connection of your philosophy to your contentions. While I like to think I have a functioning working knowledge of many of the V/C scholars, my background is in Lacanian lit. crit. (Marx, decon., race, gender, queer theory, etc. are all in my wheelhouse), so help me out with specifically who we're talking about and what facet of their oeuvre you're using. Ignore the contentions debate and lose. Ignore the V/C debate and lose.

RJ Tischler Central High School 4 rounds

Christian Vasquez The Blake School 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 29, 2024 at 7:09 PM CDT

For the postseason tournaments:

I will intervene if I don't see a value to a theory debate in public forum. Times are too short to turn a debate into a sandbagging contest, and I won't listen anymore. Whether debate is a simulation or a game, I don't think these debates should determine the outcome of championships or bubble rounds. You initiating a theory debate means you have to believe there's truly something egregious going on. Disagree? You're welcome to, please strike me.

I do think people are still overestimating me in K debates. I have a passing understanding on most issues, but anything beyond the beaten path will leave me to my own thoughts on how an argument works, which isn't fair to any party involved. The last time I was reading anything close to most K literature was at least five years ago, and I'm more than likely far behind the times. Really, I have enough background knowledge to be dangerous but not helpful when left alone.

Who am I?

Assistant Director of Debate, The Blake School MN - 2014 to present

Co-Director, Public Forum Boot Camp(Check our website here) MN - 2021 to present

Assistant Debate Coach, Blaine High School - 2013 to 2014

During the season, I am typically involved in topic work for my team and read quite a bit. However, I’m finding that students will frequently make up acronyms now that might not exist in the original literature. If it’s something you made to try to cut down on time, chances are I will still need to be told what it stands for anyway.

My preferred debates are ones in which both teams have come prepared to engage each other with some reasonable expectation as to what the other team is going to read. Debaters should have to defend both their scholarship and practices in round. If you've chosen to not disclose, are unable to explain why the aff doesn't link to the K, or explain to me why you should be rewarded for being otherwise unprepared, you're fully welcome to try to explain why you should not lose in a varsity level competition. However, strategies that are purposefully meant to run to the margins and seek incredibly small pieces of offense in order to eke out a win due to the reliance on shoddy scholarship, conspiracy-peddlers, or outright fabrication will be met with intervention. If your argument will fall apart the moment I spend maybe thirty seconds to confirm something for my RFD, you should strike me.

This activity only exists so long as we implement practices that allow it to. All of our time in debate is limited(though some rounds can feel like an endless purgatory or the tenth layer of hell) but the implications of how rounds are conducted and behavior that is put forth as an example will echo far into the future. You should want to win because you put in more effort and worked harder. If you don’t want to put real effort and clash with arguments in a round, why are you spending so much time in these crusty high schools eating district cafeteria food when you could be doing literally anything else?

Prior to the round

Please add my personal email christian.vasquez212@gmail.com and blakedebatedocs@googlegroups.com to the chain. The second one is for organizational purposes and allows me to be able to conduct redos with students and talk about rounds after they happen.

The start time listed on ballots/schedules is when a round should begin, not that everyone should arrive there. I will do my best to arrive prior to that, and I assume competitors will too. Even if I am not there for it, you should feel free to complete the flip and send out an email chain.

The first speaking team should initiate the chain, with the subject line reading some version of “Tournament Name, Round Number - 1st Speaking Team(Aff or Neg) vs 2nd Speaking Team(Aff or neg)” Sending google docs that are unable to be downloaded/will have access rescinded immediately after the round is unacceptable and shows that you’re relying more on smoke and mirrors than proper debate. No one is going to care that you’re reading the same China DA or “structural violence framing” that everyone in the tournament has been reading since camp.

I do not care what you wear(as long as it’s appropriate for school) or if you stand or sit. I have zero qualms about music being played, poetry being read, or non-typical arguments being made.

Non-negotiables

I will be personally timing rounds since plenty of varsity level debaters no longer know how clocks work. There is no grace period, there are no concluding thoughts. When the timer goes off, your speech or question/answer is over. Beyond that, there are a few things I will no longer budge on:

You must read from cut cards the first time evidence is introduced into a round. The experiment with paraphrasing in a debate event was an interesting one, but the activity has shown itself to be unable to self-police what is and what is not academically dishonest representations of evidence. Comparisons to the work researchers and professors do in their professional life I think is laughable. Some of the shoddy evidence work I’ve seen be passed off in this activity would have you fired in those contexts, whereas here it will probably get you in late elimination rounds.
The inability to produce a piece of evidence when asked for it will end the round immediately. Taking more than thirty seconds to produce the evidence is unacceptable as that shows me you didn’t read from it to begin with.
Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. will end the round immediately in an L and as few speaker points as Tab allows me to give out.
Questions about what was and wasn’t read in round that are not claims of clipping are signs of a skill issue and won’t hold up rounds. If you want to ask questions outside of cross, run your own prep. A team saying “cut card here” or whatever to mark the docs they’ve sent you is your sign to do so. If you feel personally slighted by the idea that you should flow better and waste less time in the round, please reconsider your approach to preparing for competitions that require you to do so.
Defense is not “sticky.” If you want something to count in the round, it needs to be included in your team’s prior speech. The idea that a first speaking team can go “Ah, hah! You forgot about our trap card” in the final focus after not extending it in summary is ridiculous and makes a joke out of the event.
I will not read off of docs during the round. I will clear you twice if I am not able to comprehend you. Opponents don’t get to clear each other. Otherwise why would I not just say clear into oblivion during your speech time?
Theory is not a weapon or a trick. Hyper-specific interpretations meant to box the opponent out of a small difference as to how they’ve conducted a practice are not something I’m willing to entertain. Objections based on argument construction/sequencing are fine though.

Negotiables

These are not set in stone, and have changed over time. Running contrary to me on these positions isn’t a big issue and I can be persuaded in the context of the round.

Tech vs truth

To me, the activity has weirdly defined what “technical” debate is in a way that I believe undermines the value of the activity. Arguments being true if dropped is only as valid as the original construction of the argument. Am I opposed to big stick impacts? Absolutely not, I think they’re worth engaging in and worth making policy decisions around. I personally enjoy heg, terror, and other extinction level scenarios. But, for example, if you cannot answer questions regarding what is the motivation for conflict, who would originally engage in the escalation ladder, or how the decision to launch a nuclear weapon is conducted, your argument was not valid to begin with. Asking me to close my eyes and just check the box after essentially saying “yadda yadda, nuclear winter” is as ridiculous as doing the opposite after hearing “MAD checks” with no explanation.

Teams I think are being rewarded far too often for reading too many contentions in the constructive that are missing internal links. I am more than just sympathetic to the idea that calling this out amounts to terminal defense at this point. If they haven’t formed a coherent argument to begin with, teams shouldn’t be able to masquerade like they have one.

There isn’t a magical number of contentions that is either good or bad to determine whether this is an issue or not. The benefit of being a faster team is the ability to actually get more full arguments out in the round, but that isn’t an advantage if you’re essentially reading two sentences of a card and calling it good.

I am not a fan of extinction/death good debates. I do not think teams are thoroughly working through the implications as to what conclusions come from starting down that path and what supremacist notions are lying underneath. If a villain from a B movie made in the 80s meant to function as COINTELPRO propaganda would make your same argument, I don’t really want to hear it. Eco-fascism is still fascism, ableist ideas of what it means to have a meaningful life are still ableist, and white supremacists are still going to decide in what order/what people are going to the gallows first.

Theory

In PF debate only, I default to a position of reasonability. I think the theory debates in this activity, as they’ve been happening, are terribly uninteresting and are mostly binary choices.

Is disclosure good? Yes

Is paraphrasing bad? Yes

Distinctions beyond these I don’t think are particularly valuable. Going for cheapshots on specifics I think is an okay starting position for me to say this is a waste of time and not worth voting for. That being said, I feel like a lot of teams do mis-disclose in PF by just throwing up huge unedited blocks of texts in their open source section. Proper disclosure includes the tags that are in case and at least the first and last three words of a card that you’ve read. To say you open source disclose requires highlighting of the words you have actually read in round.

That being said, answers that amount to whining aren’t great. Teams that have PF theory read against them frequently respond in ways that mostly sound like they’re confused/aghast that someone would question their integrity as debaters and at the end of the day that’s not an argument. Teams should do more to articulate what specific calls to do x y or z actually do for the activity, rather than worrying about what they’re feeling. If your coach requires you to do policy “x” then they should give you reasons to defend policy “x.” If you’re consistently losing to arguments about what norms in the activity should look like, that’s a talk you should have with your coach/program advisor about accepting them or creating better answers.

Kritiks

Overall, I’m sympathetic to these arguments made in any event, but I think that the PF version of them so far has left me underwhelmed. I am much better for things like cap, security, fem IR, afro-pess and the like than I am for anything coming from a white pomo tradition/understanding(French high theory). Survival strategies focused on identity issues that require voting one way or the other depending on a student’s identification/orientation I think are bad for debate as a competitive activity.

Kritiks should require some sort of link to either the resolution(since PF doesn’t have plans really), or something the aff has done argumentatively or with their rhetoric. The nonexistence of a link means a team has decided to rant for their speech time, and not included a reason why I should care.

Rejection alternatives are fine(Zizek and others were common when I was in debate for context) but teams reliant on “discourse” and other vague notions should probably strike me. If I do not know what voting for a team does, I am uncomfortable to do so and will actively seek out ways to avoid it.

Sam Wakeman Horace Mann School 7 rounds

Jariya Wanapun The Spence School 7 rounds

Apollo Wang Winston Churchill High School 4 rounds

Chenguang Wang Richard Montgomery High School 4 rounds

Sophia Wang Palo Alto High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Sun April 21, 2024 at 10:42 AM CDT

Email chain: sophiaw1128@gmail.com

I did PF for four years, coached since graduating

flay --------> me ----------------------> ultra tech policy judge

Wear whatever you want, speak from wherever you want, doesn't matter

Default framing util, default weighing is highest mag first, presume first

Strike Guide:

Link spamming (10> in a case) and dumping frivolous progressive args will only hurt you

Trigger warnings are mandatory on sensitive/graphic content. Don't do anything violent/exclusionary. Clear and obvious violations to the average person that are pointed out = L20. Even if it's not pointed out you're probably not getting higher than a 25

Tech:

I judge substance better than I judge prog, keep that in mind, that being said -

Things that I am comfortable with:

Theory, Stock Ks, most frameworks ran in pf

Theory:

CI>R, DTA, no RVIs, text by default but up for debate

Should be read immediately after violation, depending on the situation (experience level, impromptu theory) I am OK with forgetting to extend interp or violation if there are no responses on it. Standards and voters need to be in every speech.

In messy theory debates with multiple shells involved. You must weigh in order to prevent me from intervening.

You can paraphrase or not disclose as long as you respond well to their respective shells. I don't mandate either nor am I biased towards those particular standards. I will also evaluate things like theory bad if you win it on the flow.

Important: I will judge Ks using the mechanisms that doing pf has given me. Do not expect me to understand policy jargon or know how to implicate your literature properly. You know your own K best, so if you're going to real Ks please spend enough time telling me exactly how you want me to evaluate it. Otherwise it'll just be an uninformed ballot.

I am most familiar with stock Ks: fem, cap/sec etc, so if you're reading more niche K make sure to be extra diligent about implicating it.

Shells almost always uplayers the K, so you need to read counterinterp of respond to shells read, just weighing may not be enough (again depends on the K)

Things that I am not familiar with:

T, Tricks, High Theory/unnecessarily complicated philosophy

pls no

Speed:

Send doc

Speaks:

Speaks are given based on strategy/content instead of rhetoric/fluency. I give 30s. My baseline is 28. I rarely go below that.

Speeches:

Constructive:

Just be clear, I’ll vote on anything as long as it’s warranted

Rebuttals:

If you want to concede defense to kick out of turns on your case, or read your own defense on your own case to kick those turns (sketch, but fine), you need to do it immediately after the opposing speech which made those turns. Second rebuttal should frontline. if your opponents bring up weighing in first rebuttal it is okay to not address it until summary. I don't evaluate "no warrant" responses unless you give me counter-warranting, link weighing, or some degree of implication.

Summary:

Defense is not sticky and needs to be in every speech. That being said, the extent to which I'll tolerate blippy extensions is directly inverse to how much ink your opponent puts on said thing you're extending. At the minimum, I need link + Impact + implication.

Final Focus:

Be smart with ff strategy, easiest way to win me over as a judge.

Interact, weigh, go for the right things

Feel free to postround, it is good and educational. But please only do so if the round ends before 10pm, otherwise just email me

Gordon Wilson McLean High School 4 rounds

Jalyn Wu Millburn High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Sun June 30, 2024 at 10:17 AM PDT

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

- 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

- 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

Yan Yang Amador Valley High School 7 rounds

Vivian Yellen Bergen County Academies 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 20, 2024 at 8:47 AM EDT

Natcir PF for 4 years at Bronx Science (Bronx Science MY) competed at GTOC, nats, etc... Sophomore at Cornell studying Global Development, Public Policy and Economics (please ask me about it if ur interested!). I have been coaching since graduating.

add me to chains -- email is vy.debate@gmail

TLDR: tech; warrant everything. Without solid comparative weighing, my ballot normally goes to the least mitigated link first and then the largest impact--at least be good at frontlining if you can't weigh

important general preferences:

"Fast PF speed" is totally fine - faster then 210wpm is when I start to have issues.

I hate blippy weighing without warrants. Don't just say "I outweigh on timeframe" tell me why, make it comparative, and implicate it on the flow

Link in's need weighing on top of them or else they just function as a piece of non-comparative offense

You need full extensions, no questions asked. Dont forget internal links

Extend warrants, not card names. chances are if you just say "extend John 19" I won't remember what John said and I won't flow it

If you want me to vote on an impact turn or rebuttal disad it also need to have a terminal impact extended and be weighed against other offense

more teams should be reading analytics in rebuttal, warranted analytic > unwarrated ev ANYDAY

I won't listen to cross unless someone says smth funny, then I'll tune in

I obviously won't eval new args, but It is equally YOUR burden to call out when technical 'abuses' happens

not having actual cut cards on hand = huge drop in speaks

rant about "probability" weighing
probability weighing just isn't real weighing- any conceded defense or argument is 100% true, at that point any of your probability weighing is just some sort of defense, so just implicate it as that instead and do it in rebuttal. If you read "probability weighing" but its acgtually just new defense in summary or final I am docking ur speaks and will be rly sad. The caveat to this is: I'll consider evaluating probability analysis as weighing ONLY if it's comparative--- ie if you compare the extent of your actor's capacity or incentive to carry out a certain argument as a way to prefer one over another. pls feel free to ask me to explain this better irl or if u j wanna chat about it, i like talking about it!

non-subs debate - Ks, Theory, etc..
I'm comfy eval-ing pretty much anything. But ask me before round if u want to be sure.

zero bias on disclo on para — but if you happen to be interested, while I always disclosed OS I also paraphrased (and lowkey baited para shells lol)

Im really unfamiliar with Phil. I know its making an entry into PF and I will try my best to understand / evaluate it but I have legit no experience debating or judging it so run at your own risk

NO TRIX!! please.

fun
if u make me genuinely laugh out loud I will be happy and boost ur speaks; if ur joke flops that sucks for u i guess

most importantly, have fun! let me know if/how I can accommodate you in round in any way

coaching conflicts: Bergen County Academies CM & LS, Awty ZZ, Interlake WZ, Summit GM

Lawrence Zhou Taipei American School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 28, 2024 at 5:26 AM CDT

I am currently a policy and PF coach at Taipei American School. My previous affiliations include Fulbright Taiwan, the University of Wyoming, Apple Valley High School, The Harker School, the University of Oklahoma, and Bartlesville High School. I have debated or coached policy, LD, PF, WSD, BP, Congress, and Ethics Bowl.

Email for the chain: taipeiamericanpolicy at gmail.com

If I'm judging you at an online tournament, it's probably nighttime for me in Taiwan. Pref accordingly.

---

Policy

Stolen from Matt Liu: "Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas."

I debated for OU back in the day but you shouldn't read too much into that—I wasn't ever particularly good or invested when I was competing. I lean more towards the policy side than the K side and I'm probably going to be unfamiliar with a lot of the ins-and-outs of most kritiks, although I will do my best to fairly evaluate the debate as it happens.

1. I tend to think the role of the aff is to demonstrate that the benefits of a topical plan outweigh its costs and that the role of the neg is to demonstrate that the costs and/or opportunity costs of the aff's plan outweigh its benefits.
2. I find variations of "fairness bad" or "logic/reasoning bad," to be incredibly difficult to win given that I think those are fundamental presuppositions of debate itself. Similarly, I find procedural fairness impacts to be the best 2NRs on T/Framework.
3. Conditionality seems obviously good, but I'm not opposed to a 2AR on condo. Most other theory arguments seem like reasons to reject the argument, not the team. I lean towards reasonability. Most counterplan issues seem best resolved at the level of competition, not theory.
4. Warrant depth is good. Argument comparison is good. Both together, even better.

None of these biases are locked in—in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

---

NSDA Public Forum

Put the Public back in Public Forum.

My ideal round to judge is a high-quality lay debate backed by evidence and strong rhetoric.

For the NSDA, follow all of the evidence rules and guidelines listed in the NSDA Evidence Guide. I care a lot about proper citations, good evidence norms, clipping, and misrepresentation. If I find evidence that does not conform to these guidelines, I will minimally disregard that piece of evidence and maximally vote against you.

I won't vote for arguments spread, theory, kritiks, or anything unrelated to the truth or falsity of the resolution. I find it extremely difficult to vote for arguments that lack resolutional basis (e.g., most theory or procedural arguments, some kritikal arguments, etc.). I find trends to evade debate over the topic to be anathema to my beliefs about what Public Forum debate ought to look like.

I care that you debate the topic in a way that reflects serious engagement with the relevant scholarly literature. I would also prefer to judge debates that do not contain references to arcane debate norms or jargon.

My ideal debate is one in which each team reads one contention with well-developed evidence.

tl;dr won't blink twice about voting against teams that violate evidence rules or try to make PF sound like policy-lite.

Other Things

Exchanging evidence in a manner consistent with the NSDA's rules on evidence exchange has become a painfully slow process. Please simply set up an email chain or use an online file sharing service in order to quickly facilitate the exchange of relevant evidence. Calling for individual pieces of evidence appears to me as nothing more than prep stealing.

If the Final Focus is all read from the computer, just send me the speech docs before the debate starts to save us some time (in other words, please don't just read a prewritten speech). I'll also cap your speaks at 28.

I do not believe that either team has any obligation to "frontline" in second rebuttal, but my preferences on this are malleable. If "frontlining" is the agreed upon norm, I expect that the second speaking team also devote time to rebuttals in the constructive speeches.

The idea of defense being "sticky" seems illogical to me.

There is also a strong trend towards under-developing arguments in an activity that already operates with compressed speech times. I also strongly dislike the practice of spamming one-line quotes with no context (or warrant) from a dozen sources in a single speech. I will reward teams generously if they invest in a few well-warranted arguments which they spend time meaningfully weighing compared to if they continue to shotgun arguments with little regard for their plausibility or quality.

---

WSD

My debate experience is primarily in LD, policy, and PF. I do not consider myself well-versed in all the intricacies or nuances of WSD strategy and norms. My only strong preference is that want to see well-developed and warranted arguments. I would prefer fewer, better developed arguments over more, less-developed arguments.

---

Online Procedural Concerns

1. Follow tournament procedure regarding online competition best practices.
2. Record your speeches locally. If you cut out and don't have a local backup, that's a you problem.
3. Keep your camera on when you speak, I don't care if it's on otherwise. Only exception is if there are tech or internet issues---keeping the camera off for the entirety of the debate otherwise is a good way to lose speaker points.
4. I'll keep my camera off for prep time, but I'll verbally indicate I'm ready before each speech and turn on the camera for your speeches. If you don't hear me say I'm ready and see my camera on, don't start.
5. Yes, I'll say clear and stuff for online rounds.

Login to Tabroom

52nd Annual Tournament of Champions

2024 — Lexington, KY/US

Public Forum Gold Paradigm List

Judges